Agenda item

The Committee noted that this application was being reconsidered in accordance with Committee procedure following the decision at the previous Committee meeting that it was minded to refuse the application on the grounds of impact to visual amenity, impact to amenity to existing residents and parking impacts.

Members were reminded of the details of the application which needed to be considered in accordance with Government legislation relating to prior approval under permitted development rights.

Officers drew members’ attention to the report which set out the reasons under which the Committee might refuse the application based on the visual impact of two additional stories on neighbouring properties and existing residents, highways impact due to the lack of on street parking and the external appearance of the proposed building.

In response to members questions, officers made the following comments:

•            The Committee was free to consider the application on the merits of the evidence provided, including lack of evidence in relation to the time of the day of the parking survey that was carried out

•            Since the application was next to a Conservation Area but not within it and due to its status as a prior approval planning application, there were more limited grounds on which it could be considered

•            The reference to external appearance as one of the suggested reasons for refusal could still be considered by the Committee and could be defended at appeal

•            Residents’ views on the appearance of the building could still be considered in making the decision

Councillor Richard Eddy moved, seconded by Councillor Sultan Khan and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (9 for, 1 against) – that the application be refused on the following grounds:

Highways Impacts

1. The application is not supported by sufficiently robust evidence to demonstrate that there is adequate on-street parking capacity to accommodate parking arising from the development without safety and congestion issues. In addition to existing on street car parking relating to adjacent schools, bowling club, church and homes, car parking relating to the proposed flats would cause excessive congestion, increased complexity in navigation and manoeuvring as well as reduced visibility. This is of particular concern given movements of pupils accessing the adjacent schools. Increased conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and drivers would lead to a material decrease in highway safety. The development therefore fails to contribute to a safe environment which minimises conflicts between all highway users. The development also fails to address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility through lack of any car parking provision. These factors would represent unacceptable transport and highways impacts and conditions which are contrary to policy outlined at Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The development therefore fails to pass the test outlined at Condition A.2 – (1) (a) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.

Impact to external appearance

2. The proposed extension would disproportionately increase the scale and mass of the building which would harmfully unbalance the external appearance of the building. The extension would cause the building to appear over scaled and excessively prominent within the context. This would relate to the external appearance of the building when viewed including surrounding buildings and trees. The proposed increase in scale would be of detriment to the visual attractiveness of the building and would be unsympathetic to local character and result in harm to the adjacent conservation area. The impact to the external appearance of the building is found to be unacceptable due to conflict with policy outlined at Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The development therefore fails to pass the test outlined at Condition A.2 – (1) (e) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.

Impact to amenity of existing residents

3. The proposed third and fourth floors would cause overlooking of adjacent existing dwellings. Specifically, windows within the south elevation of the extension would afford views towards 27 Grange Park as well as 27 Grange Court Road. This would materially reduce privacy experienced at these adjacent dwellings which would be harmful to quality of amenity. The development would also be harmful to the amenity of existing occupiers of Grange Court as a result of increased occupancy of the building and increased use of stairwells. As a result of these factors, the development would fail create an environment which promotes residents’ health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. This is contrary to policy outlined at Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The development therefore fails to pass the test outlined at Condition A.2 – (1) (g) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.