Agenda item

The proposed demolition of disused single storey garages and their replacement with 3No. three bed terraced houses, with associated private amenity space. The proposals also include the construction of a bicycle shelter and the replacement of a brick wall at the end of Ringcroft Street with new boundary treatment.

(Planning application number: P2018/4056/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer corrected a typographical error at paragraph 10.30 of the report submitted, inserting the word ‘not’, as follows: ‘As such, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity in terms of loss of outlook or an increased sense of enclosure.’

·         The Planning Officer summarised an objection received in relation to the application, which included a suggestion that the proposal should also include the repair and upgrade of the whole of Ringcroft Street in order to match the proposed landscaping and paving. In response, the Planning Officer did not consider that improvement works to the whole of Ringcroft Street could be justified. The application was consistent with the requirements of the Streetbook SPD and was not considered to have a detrimental impact on the St Mary Magdalene’s Conservation Area.

·         The Sub-Committee queried apparent discrepancies on the submitted plans and elevation drawings.

·         The applicant concurred that it would be possible to revise the width of the first floor windows to achieve compliance with Condition 4, however it was not yet known how this would be achieved.

·         Members of the Sub-Committee queried if the proposed development was sympathetic to the existing street scene, highlighting that the use of materials appeared to differ from existing properties. The architect set out their vision for the development and explained that the proposal was a modern interpretation of a historic London terrace. The architect also commented that new paving would make use of the same materials as the existing pavement.

·         The Committee queried the proposed green roofs on the properties. The architect advised that these were initially proposed to be balconies however were changed to green roofs following a pre-application discussion with planning officers. Planning Officers explained that any balcony would cause unaccaptable overlooking of the adjactent house window (in the side wall of the outrigger at first floor). Screening would be required to mitigate overlooking issues however this would present unacceptable clutter and would cause restriction to outlook of the nearest window.

·         Officers advised that the houses met amenity space standards without providing a balcony, and access to a balcony from a child’s bedroom was not necessarily appropriate. The proposed inclusion of green roofs was policy compliant. Members expressed concern that the green roofs would inevitably be used as amenity space regardless. 

·         Members queried the placement of doors and windows, noting that the proposed window line did not continue that of neighbouring properties. The architect explained that this was necessitated by modern design standards and the intention was for the development to be sympathetic to neighbouring properties.

·         Following a question, the applicant confirmed that the development would be fitted with swift boxes.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to defer the consideration of this item to enable the applicant to revisit the plans, including the possible inclusion of balconies, the placement of windows, the use of landscaping and materials, and the accuracy of drawings. This was seconded by Councillor Chapman and carried.  

RESOLVED:

That consideration of this item be deferred for the reasons outlined above.