Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Craig Brand, the agent.

Mr Brand referred members to the presentation screen and explained the slides being shown, with slide 1 showing 3 previous garden developments in close proximity to the application site, slide 2 showing the 2 new dwellings in Hawthorne Grove which have side gardens and slide 3 showing the new dwelling in Ash Grove which has a 7m deep rear garden; with first floor bedroom and bathroom windows in the rear elevation overlooking the neighbouring gardens. He explained that the plot is of constant width and 19.8m deep, requiring only a 6.6m deep garden to achieve the minimum one third private amenity set out in Policy LP16 part H.

Mr Brand stated that the committee report gives one reason for refusal; overlooking causing loss of privacy and stated that as shown on the site layout drawing the new property will not directly face onto the back of 7 and 6 Hawthorne Grove only the ends of their gardens.  He expressed the view that overlooking of the gardens will be no worse than the Ash Grove house in Slide 3 and the main bedroom at the rear will be the homeowners; with work and family commitments making it unlikely to be used during daylight hours. He added that generally only when opening and closing the curtains will there be any overlooking of the neighbouring gardens, when they are unlikely to be in use and all gardens do have some degree of overlooking from first floor windows as has been stated in past Planning Inspectorate decisions.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the submitted illustrative house designs depth could be reduced slightly and possibly positioned slightly further forward to give extra garden depth. He pointed out that on slide 4 it shows the original rear bedroom window of No7 and the nearer extension bedroom window, with the original bedroom reduced to a box room study with boiler cupboard caused by the access corridor to the extension bathroom and bedroom, however, the slide does not clearly show the lean-to roof which obscures views into the ground floor windows.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that in 30 years as an agent there has never been any guidance published in any of the Local Plans on separation distance requirements and it has always been the Officer’s opinion on each application. He stated that the illustrative application drawing shows the bedroom window is offset 10.3m from the rear of the neighbours bedroom window and the 15m plus separation that will be achieved by a new house, in his opinion, is more than adequate considering bedrooms normal night time use and stated that you would also have to intentionally look towards No7 to see the window. He stated that if Members have concerns about the separation distance between windows the property could be handed as shown on Slide 5, so the distance is increased to 19m minimum.

Mr Brand stated that permission is sought for the erection of a house not a block of flats which could have a daytime lounge and kitchen overlooking the neighbouring properties on Hawthorne Grove and by making the proposed main adult bedroom at the rear and children’s bedrooms at the front there will be minimal overlooking and loss of privacy to the Hawthorn Grove properties. He concluded by stating that the lost parking for No9 will be addressed by new off-street parking adjacent to the house similar to that shown in Slide 6.

Members asked Mr Brand the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that officers have stated that the proposal does not comply due to the inadequate amount of amenity space and added that Mr Brand had alluded that the dwelling could be moved forward slightly in order to gain some further space. He asked Mr Brand that if that was the case would it not interfere with the building line? Mr Brand stated that the depth of the house could be reduced slightly by 2ft and then if the Planning Officers allowed the proposal to be moved forward by 1ft, then it would provide an additional 3ft of garden space. He added that currently there is a 7 metre deep rear garden and the minimum one third is 6.6 metre depth, which complies with the amenity space requirements under LP16(h) of the Local Plan. He stated that it is not the final design and the plans could be revised by shrinking the house size down by 2ft and bringing the proposal forward by 1ft. Councillor Cornwell stated that the proposal is already in advance of the building line in Acacia Grove anyway and he would not expect that the Mr Brand would want to bring the dwelling any further forward. Mr Brand stated that in Ash Grove the dwellings are only set back 3 metres from the back of the footway. Councillor Cornwell stated that this proposal is not in Ash Grove and cannot be used as a comparison as each application is considered on its own merits.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton stated that if the agent wanted to move the proposal forward by another foot, would officers agree? David Rowen stated that when a new house is being constructed, a foot is only a negligible amount and by moving the house a further foot forward, although it would not have an impact on the street scene of Acacia Grove, consideration would have to be given with regard to what would be achieved in terms of further separation and overcome the overlooking issue at the back and a foot in distance would not achieve a great deal.

·         Nick Harding stated that members also need to be mindful of the consequences beyond the building line issue that may arise. He added that if the house is moved forward slightly, there is currently parking in front of the proposed garage on the indicative plan and if that car parking  space in front of the garage is only currently within the allowable amount on which you can park a car and the space is reduced, there is the issue of a car overhanging the pavement which is not something that officers would endorse.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she would be concerned if the dwelling was moved forward and added that there are already parking issues in that area. She asked whether it was possible that the proposal could be a dorma bungalow which would overcome the issue of overlooking and possibly alleviate some of the neighbours’ concerns. David Rowen  explained that the application is for a 2 storey dwelling and added that to overcome the issue of overlooking by erecting a dorma bungalow would then bring forward an issue in terms of how a dorma bungalow would fit into the street scene in terms of character and appearance when the predominant form of development in the Hawthorne Grove and Acacia Grove corner are 2 storey type of dwellings.

Members asked questions, made comments, and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the view that he feels very strongly when it comes to the issue of overlooking. He added that he feels very sorry for the residents of 6 Hawthorne Grove who are suffering from constant overlooking.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he agrees with the points raised by Councillor Murphy and he added that, in this case, it maybe necessary to consider the comments of the neighbouring properties as they will be the ones who will be directly affected. He added he has considered the comments made by Councillor Mrs French with regard to the car parking issues and the traffic congestion. Councillor Meekins added that he will be opposing the application.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that he cannot see an issue with the application and stated that it could be altered so that the garage could be moved to the other side to alleviate some of the issues.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she agrees with the officer’s recommendation and she expressed the opinion that the dwelling does not fit in the space provided.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he cannot support this application. He added that the proposal does not conform with national guidance and, in his opinion, the house should not be brought forward. He added that he agrees with the comments made by Councillor Mrs Davis.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the application has many short comings, and, in his opinion, the officers have made the right recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that in principle the site could accommodate the dwelling, but she does not agree with the overlooking and suggest that the applicant reviews the plans and brings another proposal back to the planning officers without any overlooking.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with the comments made by other members with regard to the proposal being shoehorned into the space and agrees with the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Purser expressed the view that he agrees with the officer’s recommendation and he cannot support the application.

·         Nick Harding clarified with members that with regard to his earlier comments in the previous application, the point he was making was that when determining applications, a decision should not be made on the basis of the number of supporters or objectors to a scheme. The detail of what each individual person is saying should be taken into account and its relevance considered from a planning perspective on the proposal before members and in the context of material planning considerations and planning policy.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he has listened to the debate and agrees with the comments made. He added that with regard to the comments made by Councillor Mrs French he agrees that it could be a building plot for something else if the agent and applicant liaise with officers.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Meekins and decided that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Mrs French, Purser and Skoulding declared under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters that they are members of March Town Council, but take no part in planning matters)