Agenda item

Application for determination.

Contact: Development Control Tel: (01452) 396783

Councillor Toleman having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application took no part in the debate or vote.

The Principal Planning Officer presented her report which detailed an application for the demolition of 70, Tuffley Crescent and the erection of seven dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Russell Randford addressed the Committee in support of the application

Mr Randford advised Members that the application had been submitted in February and he was disappointed that it had taken seven months to be determined. He was surprised by the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application which he believed was an attempt to protect a perceived heritage building.

He explained that prior approval for demolition had been sought and deemed consent for demolition was in place. Number 70 was in poor structural condition and number 72 had recently been extended and rebuilt with a changed frontage.

He questioned the first reason for refusal which stated the demolition of the house would cause harm, resulting in an odd appearance and negative impact on the remaining part of the building.

He noted that the neighbour at number 72 was supportive of the proposal and confirmed that the appropriate demolition notice had been served on Building Control.

He referred to the second recommended reason for refusal on grounds of noise and disturbance to the detriment of the present level of amenity enjoyed by the surrounding residential properties. He advised Members that the proposed access was similar to a number of applications which had been granted in the City and which would be cited at any appeal. He referred in particular to 7, Podsmead Road where there had been no mention of noise or disturbance.

He advised Members that the developers of the land to the rear of this proposal had confirmed that they had no interest in this site.

Andrea Dowle addressed the Committee in objection to the application

Ms Dowle advised that she was speaking on behalf of her own family and the occupiers of five neighbouring properties. She had moved into Tuffley Crescent in 2011 and considered it to be a pretty and quiet street. The proposal for the access to seven properties opposite her home would affect the amenity of her property. She had concerns relating to the adverse effects of the proposed density, parking, extra traffic and access.

She noted that the houses in Tuffley Crescent were currently well spaced and residents were mindful of the forthcoming development of the former chemical works which would also result in an increase in traffic and noise.

There was a lack of information regarding refuse collection and she was concerned that bins would be left in Tuffley Crescent on a permanent basis.

Councillor Dallimore, as Ward Member for Podsmead, addressed the Committee.

Councillor Dallimore advised that some of the nearby residents had made objections and others had not, for fear of reprisals. She supported the views expressed by the previous speaker.

She supported the heritage statement at paragraph 4.2 of the report and said that the unusual appearance of the houses added value to the communuity. She believed that the negative impact on residents would be a step too far. She stated that the development would not add value to Tuffley Crescent and would increase vehicle movements, have an impact on neighbouring properties, cause noise and disturbance and that Tuffley Crescent was already becoming a ‘rat run’.

She noted that the comments of the Contamination Officer were awaited.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the comments of the Contamination Adviser were contained within the Late Material together with a recommended condition should the Committee be minded to grant consent.

Councillor Chatterton found it difficult to support the first part of the Officer’s recommendation as there was an existing deemed consent for demolition.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there were permitted development rights but the demolition was an integral part of the application and there were concerns regarding a gap in the street scene and the impact of the access to the new dwellings.

Councillor Chatterton believed that the work undertaken on number 72 had destroyed any argument to save number 70. He noted that as there was no highways objection there must be room for a refuse collection vehicle to turn around. He noted that highways had estimated an additional 29 traffic movements would be generated each day which was a very small figure compared to the volume of traffic already using Tuffley Crescent.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the concerns related to the introduction of an access road and the vehicle movements along that access road would impact on the amenity of adjacent residents

Councillor McLellan questioned the granting of consent for the application at Podsmead Road and was advised that although the applications were similar that application had issues involving anti-social behaviour and footpath links. Officers had taken the view that the application would bring significant benefits for the local community.

Councillor Smith expressed sympathy with the residents but noted that many of the features of the properties had disappeared and they were no longer worthy of protection. She believed it would be difficult to uphold a refusal at appeal.

Councillor Lewis believed that the proposals were acceptable and he did not believe that the impact on the dwellings adjacent and opposite was sufficient to justify refusal. he felt that with the built extension, 70 and 72 were fundamentally different design houses.

Councillor Hilton was advised that planning permission had been granted for the extension of number 72. He believed that the extension to number 72 represented a fundamental planning failure.

Councillor Hanman was advised that number 70 had been habitable two months ago.

Councillor Dee regretted that the application for number 72 had not been presented for determination by the Committee.

The Chair indicated his agreement with the comments raised by Members. He considered that 70 and 72 no longer had the appearance of a pair of semi-detached houses, the demolition of the house and the new access would not damage the street scene and there was a variety of buildings in the local area. Additionally, he did not consider that the noise issue was strong enough to win on appeal. On this basis he recommended that planning permission be granted.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to necessary conditions the Development Control Manager be authorised to attach those conditions to the decision notice.