Proposal: Single storey extension (south); first floor (north) extension; render and cladding; attached garage and new access on Southwood Road.
(For report and papers see Planning Committee Agenda for 29 April 2021)
Minutes:
Proposal: Single storey extension (south); first floor (north) extension; render and cladding; attached garage and new access on Southwood Road.
The briefing was held given a request by a ward Councillor that this application be determined by the Planning Committee.
The Working Party received a written report, which identified the following key considerations:
(i) principle of development;
(ii) appropriateness of design and impact on the character of the area;
(iii) affect on neighbouring properties;
(iv) access and parking; and
(v) Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
In response to a factual question raised by a non-member of the Working Party, the officers advised that although the proposal did not incorporate adequate facilities to enable a vehicle to turn on the site and site and join the highway in a forward gear, the Highway Authority had been consulted and raised no objection to the proposal.
In response to factual questions raised by members of the Working Party, the officers advised that:
(a) condition 5 would require visibility splays to be provided before the access could be brought into use;
(b) the applicant had demonstrated that two cars could be parked on the drive side by side;
(c) the car parking provision complied with the Council’s Parking Standards;
(d) the existing development had little amenity space. The increase in the building bulk was incremental and would not result in a loss of the existing amenity area. Therefore, the proposal was not considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site;
(e) as the proposed parking spaces complied with the Council’s standards it would be difficult to remove permitted development rights to convert the garage into a use incidental to the attached dwelling house;
(f) the fence erected on the western side of the driveway did not require planning permission;
(g) the reasons for the erection of the fence referred to (e) above were unknown but could have been to provide privacy to the amenity space to the west of the driveway;
(h) with regard to the provision of electric car charging points, this application fell within existing urban area, so provision of the adopted local plan carried more weight than the emerging local plan. Furthermore, as the proposal was an extension and not a new development, electric charging points would not be required under the Council’s policies;
(i) the aerial shots of the site were shown to demonstrate the character of the area. It was acknowledged that the slides did not show the existing development on the application site; and
(j) Policy CS16 and the question of whether the proposal met the required high quality design policy had been considered when preparing the report.
RESOLVED that, based on the site inspection and information available at the
time, the following additional information be provided to the Planning Committee:
(i) information regarding the layout of the proposed parking spaces and residual driveway and access to the garage;
(ii) slides comparing the existing development with the development dismissed at appeal and what is proposed
(iii) slides highlighting the difference between the current and the proposed floorplan