Agenda item

The planning application was for the demolition of an existing garage block on the land to the rear of 264 and 266 Eastern Avenue, Dogsthorpe and the construction of two two-bed affordable dwellings including external works with parking.

The main considerations were:

·         Principle of development;

·         Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area;

·         Parking and highway implications;

·         Neighbourhood amenity;

·         Amenity provision for future occupants;

·         Developer contributions.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the signing of a legal agreement and conditions.

The Planning and Development Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The site was close to existing facilities and, as such, was considered to be a sustainable.

·         The development would help meet the affordable housing need

·         The applicant could demolish the garages currently on the site without planning permission.

·         The dwellings had been reduced from the original submission to be more modest in size.

·         There would be no impact on the street scene.

·         There would be an impact on surrounding residences’ amenity, however this was considered to be acceptable given the separation distances between dwellings.

·         Section 106 contributions would be £2,000.

·         Three comments had been received from residents with regards to overshadowing, the loss of garages and privacy.

Councillor Saltmarsh, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Councillor Saltmarsh and Councillor Miners strongly objected to this application.

·         The site was completely surrounded by residences and parking would be significantly reduced.

·         Rear access would be lost for 109 and 111 Poplar Avenue.

·         Cross Keys Homes had not carried out proper consultation or informed the garage owners of the applications.

·         The proposals would have an overbearing impact on the residences, with the proposed buildings having moved closer to the gardens of existing properties and with additional windows.

Mr Henson addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Cross Keys Homes has specifically told him that no building would take place on this site in the near future.

·         People who were applying for garages were being told that none were available, even though only ten were let on this site.

·         He would have a 20 foot high brick wall at the bottom of his garden.

·         The traffic problem in Eastern Avenue would be exacerbated.

·         It was suggested that bungalows would be more appropriate, as there would be less overlooking.

·         Concern was raised over how ambulances and emergency vehicles would gain access to the properties.

·         Concern was also raised regarding whether the correct procedure would be followed when removing the asbestos roofs.

The Committee raised the point that even if the garages were demolished, the space would still be available to use as parking. It was believed that the proposals plainly resulted in an unacceptable impact on residents. It was noted that such a development should not be shoe-horned into an established community.

In response to a query the Senior Engineer explained that highways implications had to be considered against the existing use of the site. As the proposed use would result in less traffic, no objection had been raised regarding the narrow nature of the access road.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the ground of overdevelopment and loss of amenity in accordance with policy CS16 of the adopted Core Strategy. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is REFUSED.

Reasons for the decision

The proposal was unacceptable having regard to planning policy CS16 as it was considered to represent overdevelopment and would result in the loss of residential amenity.