Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

WARD: Grange

NOTED

1.   Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposal and recent planning history.

2.   Grange Park Residents Association supported the recommendation for refusal. They commented that the size and design of the current property complemented its surroundings whereas the proposed development did not and would stand out.

3.   Receipt of a further neighbour objection, received between publication of March and April meeting agendas, on the grounds that the development was out of keeping with the other properties in Vera Avenue, and the development would damage the integrity of the local environment and allow a property very different in style to the surrounding 1920s/30s dwellings.

4.   The deputation of Murat Aydemir, the applicant, including the following points:

a.  A supporting statement had been distributed to all Members ahead of the consideration of the item.

b.  The area had a mixture of houses, with the majority having been altered. The features of no.56 a few doors away were highlighted.

c.  This was not a Conservation Area. The building was not listed.

d.  The current scheme had been changed since the original refusal in the light of the Planning Inspector’s comments, and there had been further consultation with neighbours.

e.  The third floor element had been scrapped, with no balconies or windows in the roof level to front elevation.

f.  This was a sustainable design which included solar panels, rainwater harvesting, and ground source heat pumps, triple glazing and more.

g.  The rear glass structure had been kinked back to deal with light issues, and dropped below the fence line.

5.   Councillor Savva arrived, but having missed the beginning of the item, would not be permitted to vote on this application.

6.   Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers, including:

a.  Members’ comments that the street scene was mixed and there was no uniformity between nos 56 – 64. It was considered this design would not impact on the street scene as there was so much variation in size, design and mass, and the footprint of no.56 was bigger than this.

b.  Acknowledgement that the decision was finely balanced.

c.  Confirmation of the grouping considered by the Planning Inspector, and that the appeal decision was a material consideration.

d.  Reason 1 implied that a modern building would not be acceptable, which did not necessarily reflect Members’ views.

e.  Concerns in respect of the size of the building on the site, terracing effect, and overlooking from the rear.

7.   The majority of the Committee did not support the officers’ recommendation: 5 votes for and 8 votes against with 1 abstention.

8.   Members had raised sufficient reasons for granting planning permission during their debate, and officers would impose standard conditions to an approval.

9.   The support of the majority of the Committee for the proposal that planning permission be granted: 10 votes for and 4 votes against.

AGREED that Members resolved to grant planning permission considering that;

1.  The street scene comprises a mix of properties of differing designs and size and that whilst the dwelling the subject of the application was modern in design, given its size and scale, and the fact that gaps would remain either side of the dwelling, it would not harm the appearance of the street scene.

2.  The proposed dwelling having regard to structures that presently exist on site and the relationship with the adjoining properties, the fact that overlooking of gardens presently occurs from existing first floor windows of adjacent properties would not unduly harm the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties.

Members granted delegated authority for officers to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions, including a restriction on permitted development rights. Officers to draft conditions and reasons for granting and these to be cleared by Chairman and Opposition Lead Member.