Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to conditions as set out after paragraph 15 and an additional condition on tree survey and impact assessment.

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of 4 garages and erection of a two-storey, 3/4-bedroom dwelling house with basement containing habitable rooms, timber fencing (1.8m high) to boundary, installation of vehicular and pedestrian gate to front, formation of new pedestrian access, alterations to narrow existing vehicular access to site and raise part of existing dropped kerb, with provision of 1 car-parking space.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions listed after paragraph 15 of the report.

With reference to the supplementary report, Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) informed members that having assessed the proposal against the Council’s UDP policies there were no sufficient grounds to resist the proposal on the basis of design.  Whilst acknowledging that the style of architecture proposed would be different to that of the existing neighbouring properties, the proposal would have an innovative contemporary design with its height significantly below that of the adjacent No.44 Dundonald Road and would be sited forward of the main front wall of properties. He submitted that the design represented a high quality building based on well composed elevations, high quality architectural detailing and an acceptable palette of materials.  The Area Planning Manager added that any grant of planning permission would not entitle the developer to access land without the agreement of the landowner.  He drew members’ attention to an additional condition recommended by the Tree Protection Officer to ensure that the proposed works would not harm the street tree located approximately 5.3m from the proposed dwelling house, as set out in the supplementary report.

Matthew Hancock (an objector) stated that although he did not object to the principle of the development, he considered that the current proposal would be out of character with the Area of Distinctive Residential Character (ADRC). He also expressed concerns about loss of light to No. 44 Dundonald Road and urged members to refuse the application. In response to a member’s question, Matthew Hancock stated that he would welcome an opportunity to meet and discuss with the applicant an appropriate scheme which would enhance but not detract from the area.

John Keutgen (Chair of APTRA) in objection stated that the proposed development would not complement with the ADRC as it would be an incongruous development which would result in loss of privacy.  He urged members to refuse the current application.

Mike Brazier (applicant) submitted that the current application incorporated an attractive and modern design and that the changes were to enable more light. In response to members’ questions the applicant stated that the garages which were to be replaced with the dwelling house of appropriate design quality, were derelict and not much used.  He added that the scheme would not be out of character and that there would no impact on above ground appearance.  He continued that the impact on the neighbour’s bay window would be minimal and that he did not intend to stray on to the neighbour’s property during construction

DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended subject to an additional condition on trees as set out in the supplementary report.