Minutes:
NOTED
1. Receipt of four additional letters of objection, summarised verbally by the planning officer.
2. Receipt of a letter of objection from David Burrowes MP, reflecting residents’ concerns particularly regarding the distance between dwellings and over-intensive use of the site.
3. A condition to be added in relation to subdivision of the garden to ensure adequate amenity space.
4. The arrival of Councillor T. Smith at the meeting.
5. The deputation of Mr Paul Lee, neighbouring resident of Fountains Crescent, including:
a. The development would be inappropriate and impractical and the rear amenity space would be narrow and of little practical value.
b. The separation would be inadequate between properties.
c. The development would be overbearing and intrusive to no. 26, causing loss of daylight and sunlight, and loss of privacy, and existing residents would suffer environmentally and financially.
d. The development would be against Unitary Development Policy (UDP) policies and Local Development Framework objectives.
6. The deputation of Mr John Tarrant, neighbouring resident of Fountains Crescent, including:
a. Measurements were outside limits of acceptability, and there would be inadequate distance between no. 24 and the existing house.
b. The rear gardens of no. 24 and the proposed house would both be substandard in area and shape, difficult to use, and make adding extensions or garden sheds impossible.
c. There would be increased surface water drainage problems.
7. The response of Mr Chris Georgiou of CG Architects, the agent, including:
a. The design would be in keeping with the surrounding area.
b. The house would be 3.5m away from no.26 and 7.5m away from no.24 and the building line would create a continuous rhythm of the street scene.
c. Loss of privacy would be mitigated by the building orientation and loss of light would be negligible.
d. There were provisions for off-street parking and refuse storage.
e. The development would meet safe by design standards, had numerous sustainable features, and would provide an additional family dwelling house for the borough.
8. The statement of Councillor Robert Hayward, ward councillor, including:
a. Residents of Fountains Crescent had contact him with concerns that the development would be visually and environmentally inappropriate and detract from the character of the original estate.
b. There were overlooking and privacy implications.
c. The subdivision of the site would create two inferior quality houses.
d. The proposal did not accord with a number of local and national standards and strategies.
9. The Planning officer’s response that Condition 2 removed development rights regarding detached buildings in the rear gardens and extensions.
10. The Planning officer’s response that density would be marginally over the upper limit, but in the design and setting were considered acceptable.
AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and additional condition below, for the reasons set out in the report.
Additional Condition
Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the existing garden shall be sub-divided and separated as shown on Drg No 469/12 rev F. Thereafter, the garden areas shall be retained on this basis.
Reason: in order to ensure adequate amenity space is available for future occupiers of this family dwelling having regard to the Council’s adopted standards.