Agenda item

Application for determination: -

Demolition of existing garage and erection of a two storey detached dwelling.

The Senior Planner presented the report detailing an application for the demolition of an existing garage and the erection of a two storey detached dwelling.

Councillor Hyman, the ward member for Elmbridge, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

He objected to the application on the following grounds:

-        Overlooking of neighbouring properties;

-        Unreasonable overshadowing;

-        The closeness to neighbouring properties;

-        Unnecessary development;

-        The application was more intrusive than other developments within the locality;

-        The design was out of character with neighbouring properties;

-        Invasion of privacy.

He stated that he believed that the application should be rejected unless there was a site visit by members, in which case it should be deferred until one had taken place.

A local resident addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

The resident objected to the application on the following grounds:

-        The shape of the dwelling was out of character with other properties;

-        The site visit undertaken by the officer was too short;

-        Invasion of privacy;

-        Potential flood risk;

-        The site would be close to the boundary fences of neighbouring properties;

-        The proposed dwelling would overlook a habitable room;

-        The proposed dwelling would overlook neighbouring gardens.

The Senior Planner responded to members’ questions regarding concerns about the effect on the street scene, accessibility on the site, shadowing of neighbouring gardens, the privacy of neighbouring properties, the distance between properties, parking, the potential of flooding in the area and garden amenity space on the site as follows:

-        The Senior Planner had conducted a site visit and had carried out measurements himself.

-        The measurements laid out in the report were accurate. 

-        The rear elevations of neighbouring properties on Cheltenham Road would be 36 metres away from the proposed dwelling. The minimum distance required being 21 metres.

-        There were existing drop kerbs on the site.

-        There would be some overlooking of neighbouring garden amenities of the host property and some neighbouring properties.

-        The level of overlooking caused by the dwelling would not warrant planning refusal.

-        The new development and host dwelling would have two dedicated parking spaces set to the front.

-        Gloucestershire Highways had raised no objections subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

-        The bathroom window would have obscured glazing as a condition to avoid harmful overlooking to the side elevation.

-        The area had a very low risk of flooding. Condition 5 of the report stated that no ground works would occur until details of how surface water would be disposed of had been provided.

-        A condition restricting new upper floor side facing widows without prior written approval from the local authority had been added.

-        Shared access was uncommon for the area, but the design of the proposed dwelling was not.

-        There was no policy in place requiring minimum outdoor garden amenity space.

Members’ Debate

The Vice-Chair stated that it was ‘not easy’ and that he sympathised with objections that had been raised. However, he stated that if the measurements outlined in the report were correct, if Highways had no objections, if the materials used were almost identical to neighbouring properties, then he could not see any material planning issues that would warrant refusal. He added that he would personally vote in line with the officer’s recommendation to grant the application, though he sympathised with the objections that had been raised.

The Chair stated that the issue of overlooking was the one material planning consideration he believed could possibly warrant a refusal on planning grounds. But that he did not believe that it was substantial enough to warrant refusal.

Councillor J.Brown stated that she believed that a site visit would have been beneficial.

Councillor D.Brown stated that he disagreed with the officer’s comments regarding the street scene and believed that a site visit would have been beneficial.

The Chair stated that if there was a site visit, it would need to be conducted properly. He added that he believed that the effect on the street scene would not be detrimental enough to warrant refusal.

Councillor Chambers stated that he believed that there was not a sensible planning reason for refusing the application.

The Chair moved, and the Vice-Chair seconded the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED that: - planning permission is granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report.