Agenda item

The Committee received the report and addendum.

Representations were heard from Jodie Soussan (Objector), Steve Brown (Objector) and the Agent.

Councillor Farrier, temporarily lost connection to the meeting and the comments made, were repeated to enable Councillor Farrier to continue to partake and vote.

The Committee voted on the Officer recommendation to approve the application:

It was moved by Councillor Greenspan and seconded by Councillor Ryde that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The Members of the committee considered that the proposals did not overcome the comments made by the appeal Inspector in connection with the previous application. Given the site circumstances and fall in the ground level to the properties in Cyprus Gardens, the site is clearly visible from the rear gardens of properties in Cyprus Gardens and from St. Mary’s Avenue. Members considered that, when viewed from the side, the current proposal was overly large and in particular the length of the side elevation projecting out beyond the original rear wall would result in a dominant structure which would harm the character and appearance of the host property and this part of the street.. The combination of the size of the development and the change in levels are such that the development would still be large and overbearing and have a harmful impact on the outlook of the residents in Cyprus Gardens.

1. The proposed part single, part two storey side and rear extension by virtue of size, siting, design, mass and bulk would result in overly dominant additions and an overdevelopment of the site which would fail to respect the established character and appearance of the area and of the host property contrary to policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies (2012), policies CSNPPF and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and Residential Design Guidance SPD (April 2016).
2. The proposed part single, part two storey side and rear extension by reason of its excessive depth, siting and design would appear as an overbearing and visually obtrusive development resulting in a loss of outlook to the detriment of  the residential amenities of the occupants at no. 12, 10, 8, 6 Cyprus Gardens, contrary to policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2012), policy CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), and the Residential Design Guidance 2016

Informative 1: The plans accompanying the application are:

105-A-XX-DR-01-0201 – EXISTING FRONT AND REAR ELEVATION,

105-A-XX-DR-01-0202-EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION,

STM-A-XX-DR-01-0203-01-EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION,

105-A-01-DR-01-0101-FIRST FLOOR PLAN,

105-A-00-DR-01-0100-GROUND FLOOR PLAN,

105-A-02-DR-01-0102-ROOF PLAN,

STM-A-00-DR-05-0100-REV 03-PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN

STM-A-01-DR-05-0101-REV 04-PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN

STM-A-02-DR-05-0102-REV 04-PROPOSED LOFT PLAN

STM-A-03-DR-05-0103-REV 04-PROPOSED ROOF PLAN

STM-A-XX-DR-05-0201-REV 04-PROPOSED FRONT & REAR ELEVATION

STM-A-XX-DR-05-0202-REV 04-PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION

STM-A-XX-DR-05-0203-REV 03-PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION

Informative 2: In accordance with paragraphs 38-57 of the NPPF, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, focused on solutions. The LPA has produced planning policies and written guidance to assist applicants when submitting applications. These are all available on the Council's website. The LPA has negotiated with the applicant/agent where necessary during the application process. Unfortunately the submitted scheme is not considered to accord with the Development Plan. If the applicant wishes to submit a further application, the Council is willing to assist in identifying possible solutions through the pre-application advice service.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed above.