Agenda item

Officers introduced this report and made the following points as part of their presentation:

·       Details of the application were provided. It was explained that there was no access between the two sites

·       The sites were located in the Montpelier Conservation Area and were Grade 2 listed

·       Adjacent to the site was a coach house which would have an ancillary

·       Details of the view facing north and south were provided

·       The site was currently overgrown and in a poor state of repair

·       The proposed front elevation and street scene elevation were shown to the Committee

·       There had been three rounds of consultation, with 30, 15 and 21 objections respectively. Most objections focused on the impact of listed buildings, building in a Conservation Area and the impact on local parking provision

·       The site is sustainable and is characterised by mews houses, strongly influenced by the gardens within them

·       The urban design team had no objection to the overall scale and design of the development

·       This would be the first residential development to the rear of Richmond Terrace with primarily ancillary buildings but some mews properties further up from the site

·       The conservation officer has raised no objection and has stated that the development is proportionate

·       Amenity Impact – the overall footprint is the same as other properties. The separation distance is consistent

·       Obscure glazing would be installed to ensure there was no overlooking to Richmond Terrace

·       Officers believed the scheme was acceptable and so recommended approval.

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following points:

·       The Richmond Road site had Listed Buildings status

·       The impact of thew mews houses was a factor in the original approval of the site. This plot was removed due to potential harm. However, the situation was now different due to changes in local and national planning policy, together with the increased housing need

·       The original proposed scheme had been much bigger and had been considered too large. There had been amendments to design following three rounds of consultation. Following a reduction in height, it was now considered acceptable

·       Details of the garden plot were provided. The single storey garage is the main part of the development

·       It was recommended that this development would be exempt from both types of permit ie resident and visitor. New dwellings within the RPZ should not benefit from the Residents Parking Zones but this is purely for advice. Applications for a residents permit could still be made

·       All developments within Conservation Areas and involving listed buildings were assessed according to criteria as to whether or not they were appropriate to avoid any precedent being set

·       The 2020 application was withdrawn due to concerns about the scale and design. The proposed scheme was noticeably smaller than the one which had originally been submitted. Stands for bins and the location for bins were located at the front

·       Policy DM21 confirms that the development does meet the required policy. A previous application in Clyde Road had been similar and was refused by the Committee but allowed on appeal which could happen in this instance

·       Registered cares would be allowed permits so the issue of equalities would be addressed

·       Any removal or change to Advice Note 8 would not be legally enforceable

Councillors made the following comments:

·       A site visit might be appropriate in the circumstances

·       A site visit was unnecessary as the details provided were clear

·       Whilst this was a small development, the level of objections was quite high. This site should be protected to avoid taking a portion out of the back garden and adding more houses which will change the character of the street

·       The size of the garden was a concern and needed to be protected. The height was also of concern

·       The scheme should be supported sine Policy DM21 applies

·       There was already a mismatch on the site with the 4 modern houses nearby. It was therefore unlikely any refusal could be sustained at appeal

Councillor Andrew Brown moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Jackson that the application be approved. Upon being put to the vote, this was LOST (4 for, 4 against, Chair exercising the casting vote to vote against).

Councillor Guy Poultney moved, seconded by Councillor Lesley Alexander that the item be deferred pending a Site Visit. Upon being put to the vote, this was LOST (2 for, 6 against).

Councillor Fabian Breckels then moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Jackson and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (5 for, 3 against) – that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the removal of the following wording from the end of Advice Note 8 “ as well as visitors’ parking permits if in a Residents Parking scheme”.

Councillor Chris Jackson left the meeting at this point.