Minutes:
NOTED
1. Receipt of an additional five letters of objection, with a verbal summary of the concerns raised.
2. Fox Lane and District Residents' Association had objected to the narrowness of the proposed house, flat featureless frontage, and inadequate separation between buildings.
3. An additional condition in relation to amenity space.
4. The deputation of Dr Richard Mapleston, nearby resident, including:
a. This was the third application in a series, and the others were strongly rejected by officers.
b. This would actually be a three storey building, not two.
c. Photos and drawings were misleading, not showing no.87 as it was now.
d. The estate was characterised by Edwardian villas, there were no terraced homes in the street.
e. The choice of materials was inappropriate for the street, and the building would lack features.
5. The deputation of Mr Brian Bartram, nearby resident, including:
a. The local community and the residents' association were opposed to this proposal.
b. The drawings were of poor quality and scale with cross sections not shown at all and members therefore did not have enough information.
c. The dwelling would be crammed between two existing buildings with a small gap on both sides which would be unable to be cleaned.
d. There were anomalies in the design, and building regulations could not be complied with.
6. The response of Mr Matt Bailey of Metropolis Planning and Design, the Agent, including:
a. This proposal focused on sustainable design.
b. Photographs showing the way the three applications had evolved had been provided. Compromises had been made following previous refusals of planning permission and points raised by the Planning Inspector, with changes to materials and design and amenity space.
c. All other elements of the scheme accorded with UDP policies.
7. The statement of Councillor Lamprecht, ward councillor, including:
a. This scheme would deface a beautiful Edwardian street, and was unacceptable on aesthetic and sustainability grounds in this area.
b. The locality already had a number of sub-divided dwellings, and squeezing in more homes such as this would add to problems with oversubscribed schools and health services and other infrastructure.
c. If committee was minded to give approval, there should be clear conditions specified.
8. The advice of officers in respect of the plans, separation between properties, the basement, the scheme’s acceptability and building regulations consideration.
9. Officers' confirmation that the grounds on which the appeal was dismissed had been addressed.
10. As a result of the discussion, amendment to Condition 1 (Approval of Materials) to secure the introduction of a more traditional brick finish to the ground floor of the front elevation. If this was not acceptable, the application would be reported back to Planning Committee.
AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and amendment to Condition 1, for the reasons set out in the report.
Condition 1 now to read:
The development shall not commence until details of the external finishing materials to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details to include the specification of a brick to be used in the external treatment of the ground floor front elevation of the dwelling. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance.