Minutes:
NOTED
1. Receipt of two additional letters of objection, circulated to Members, and summarised verbally by the Planning officer.
2. The Planning officer's clarification that the OS map with the report was indicative only: the plans showed clearly that the proposed development did abut the common boundary with other Radcliffe Road properties.
3. The deputation of Mr Jonathan Ward, neighbouring resident, including the following points:
(i) He lived in the semi-detached house next door and had concerns regarding the effect of the car lift on his 200 year old physically connected property.
(ii) He did not have double glazing and noise passed through from next door.
(iii) Noise limit safeguards should also apply to adjoining houses to ensure protection, and there was a need for a post construction survey.
(iv) He had found 12 case examples in other boroughs where these types of conditions were set, and therefore requested additional safeguards be made.
4. The deputation of Mr Geoff Rubenstein, neighbouring resident, including the following points:
(i) He lived at no. 8, Radcliffe Road and faced the existing flank wall of no. 4.
(ii) The proposed development would be contrary to UDP policies.
(iii) He had concerns about the scale of the development and the effect on visual outlook and amenities of neighbouring home owners.
(iv) The report referred to a distance of 18m from the rear of nos. 6, 8 and 10 Radcliffe Road, but it would be only 14m from no. 10.
(v) The development would encroach on the boundary with three properties, ruling out maintenance from within the curtilage and leading to tension with other property owners.
(vi) The development would prejudice future adjoining site development.
(vii) There would be a loss of mature boundary trees.
(viii) His written representation listed relevant UDP policies, and suggested additional conditions to any planning permission.
5. The response of Mr Michael Wallis, PMSS, the Agent and architect, including the following points:
(i) The building would not be right up against the boundaries due to the foundations and to allow guttering to overhang.
(ii) Mutual access would have to be arranged with neighbours for maintenance.
(iii) The car lift would be a small domestic version, and would be contained within a concrete basement.
(iv) He had offered neighbours the opportunity to inspect a lift.
(v) He had responded to all questions from Planning officers and had to comply with building regulations and relevant legislation.
(vi) The extension would be two storey at the front, but towards the rear near no. 10 would be single storey and would not affect rights of light.
6. The statement of Councillor Martin Prescott, ward councillor, including:
(i) He had been contacted by a number of residents concerned by the scale of the proposed extension. It would be a substantial extension on a dwelling that was currently in keeping with other houses in the area.
(ii) The boundary issues could cause problems in building the extension and there was no certainty that agreement would be reached with other property owners.
(iii) This proposal was clearly contentious in the local community, and for reasons of size and massing in general he would urge refusal.
7. The Planning officer's confirmation that a post completion survey would be incorporated into Condition 8.
8. Members' discussion and points including that all risk associated with the car lift should be borne by the developers, it was important to safeguard occupiers of the next door property, and to ensure measurements of noise and vibrations were made at the boundary. A maintenance schedule was requested to ensure there was no deterioration over time.
9. Responses to further queries about the car lift. The lift was specifically designed and scaled for this type of operation. Maximum noise levels would be set and therefore enable any necessary enforcement action to be taken.
10. Planning officers' confirmation that agreements between neighbours regarding maintenance access were a civil matter.
11. Planning officers' confirmation that excavations were likely to impact on the conifer trees at the boundary on neighbours' land, but that these were not worthy of a tree preservation order.
12. Planning officers' clarification of UDP policies, and view that on balance the development was acceptable and would not unduly prejudice outlook and amenities.
13. Attention drawn to the age of the co-joined property and potential affects of vibrations from the proposed car lift, and the quoted recommendation that garages with such lifts be built separately from dwellings.
14. Planning officers' confirmation that the car lift would be a hydraulic system, that detailed information had been provided in the specifications, and that Environmental Health officers had been consulted. Issues relating to vibrations, acoustics and affects on foundations would be covered by building regulations under separate legislation and the development would be subject to a building regulations application.
15. Members' continued concerns regarding vibrations and impact on no. 2 in particular and a proposal that a decision be deferred until further technical information could be provided, supported by a majority of the Committee.
AGREED that a decision on the application be deferred.