Agenda item

2 Windsor Road, Waltham

Applicant: Mr And Mrs I Woodhall

Location: 2 Windsor Road Waltham on the Wolds

Proposal: Proposed new dwelling on land to the rear of 2 Windsor Road; alterations to existing house to form new access driveway (Resubmission of withdrawn application reference: 16/00351/FUL )

 

(a) The Planning Officer stated that:

There are updates to the report, firstly the plan used on the front page of the report incorrectly hatches a parcel of land to the side of the development, and this part of the proposal has been removed as part of the proposal and is an error.

There has also been one further objection received in relation to the application, this objection raised matters concerning village envelopes, removal of trees, loss of privacy, out of keeping and their relevant sections contained within the NPPF, these matters have been discussed and considered within the relevant sections of the report.

This application is the resubmission of the previously withdrawn application 16/00351/FUL, the application was withdrawn due to concerns raised in relation to the effect of a new garage to No 2 Windsor Road and development on public land, the mass of the original dwelling, the architectural elevation treatment was not considered to be in keeping with the street scene and the proximity of the new dwelling to the existing site boundary was also of concern.

Since the previous application the dwelling has been reduced in size and scale to better reflect those of the area. Whilst the reduction is welcomed the dwelling remains larger in form in comparison to those that already exist close to the site.

The separation distances proposed within the application shows a distance of 22 metres from the existing dwelling to the proposed dwelling, window to window, this is considered acceptable and above the standard requirements.

The proposal is situated within a village that offers a larger range of facilities and services than most of the borough and therefore is considered to be a settlement suitable for residential development. The proposal has been designed so as not to cause significant overlooking or loss of light to nearby dwellings and has been sufficiently reduced in size and scale not to appear cramped in form when compared to the previous submission.

Balanced against this, the proposal does form a tandem development sat behind an existing dwelling and the land currently utilised as garden land with no presumption in favour of development.

It is considered that on the balance of the issues there are limited benefits accruing from the proposal when assessed as required under the guidance in the NPPF in terms of housing supply.

The balancing issues being the limited impact on character of the area are considered to be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal, namely the provision of housing in a sustainable location and of a size that would benefits the needs of the Borough.

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out within the report.

Cllr Lusty, on behalf of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that

·         Confused about this application and development of residential gardens. Clause 53 refers to inappropriate development in gardens.

·         Proposal not in keeping with the area.

·         Believe permitting the application would set a dangerous precedent for similar proposals of new houses in gardens, density and character of the area would change, therefore request you reject application.

Members had no questions.

 

Christine Carter, objector, was invited to speak and stated that

·         Wish to challenge the planning officer’s recommendation.

·         Negative impact on the area would be significant.

·         Dwelling would be cramped on this plot.

·         15% larger than previous application.

·         Window to window of 22m separation distance from no.2 to proposed site, is actually less than 18m from no.1 and less than 16m from their conservatory. Cramped back garden development.

·         Residential amenities affected in terms of overlooking, noise and disturbance issues

·         Screening is incorrectly demonstrated on drawing, existing screening would be removed

·         Position of driveway would cause noise and disturbance, vehicles pass within 2m of no.1’s windows.

·         The applicant has 3 vehicles presently, one of which is a motor home. Proposed drawing shows only two parking spaces.

·         Housing needs survey quoted identifies need for 2/3 bed houses – this dwelling cannot be seen as small 2/3 bedroom house.

·         Request that the committee refuse the application.

·         Members had no questions.

·         Nick Cooper, agent on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that

·         New house for own needs and base for relatives to visit.

·         Current house is modest.

·         45yr old estate, many houses have been adapted to incorporate occupants.

·         Unique site. Existing driveway and open lawn will be visually unaltered. Proposed house sits alongside no. 3.

·         No.1 is positioned a good distance away from proposed site. Screens will be added to it and strengthened.

·         Clients have been resident for a number of years. This would provide an additional affordable family home. Applicants garden is no longer adequately maintained due to recent back surgery.

·         Will assist with requirements for new housing.

 

A Councillor asked whether the applicant was happy with access and parking. The speaker confirmed that the applicant has a double garage, house, double driveway, proposal will make it a single driveway, and there will be remaining space in terms of access. Driveway is long and ample enough to accommodate cars off the road.

Members had no further questions for the speaker.

 

A Councillor enquired that backland developments used to be refused completely, asked what has changed.

The Head of Regulatory Services stated that policy has changed and that policy H18 no longer has the weight that it did. There have been many upheavals to the planning system in response to the housing crisis.

Cllr Holmes stated that the original houses in this area were designed as 4 bed houses with paddocks. There have been extensions but no new houses. Would potentially have a house in every garden if this is approved. Over intrusive development because the trees used for screening are actually bushes. Very close to no.1 and no.3. , cannot see where parking would be. Not a suitable area for development. Propose to refuse.

Cllr Botterill seconded the proposal to refuse. Totally out of character with area. All have paddocks. Area does not need to be tied houses. Nice area currently, if other people follow suit area will be affected negatively.

A councillor questioned the validity of the reason of supporting growing needs of family. Existing house is 4 bed, new house is 3 bed. Overpowering house. Paragraph 53 of NPPF. Inappropriate for village of this style, and question reason for development.

Proposal to refuse on basis of over-intensification and out of character with the area.

A vote was taken. 6 Members voted to refuse the application. 4 voted against the refusal. Cllr Cumbers asked for her vote to be recorded.

 

DETERMINATION: REFUSED, for the following reasons:

The proposed dwelling, by reason of size, design, layout, massing and scale, would result in a cramped form of development, and would not be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the site. The proposal represents the over-development of the site, to the detriment of the character of the area. The proposal is considered contrary to Section 7 of the NPPF 'Requiring Good Design' and Policies OS1 and BE1 of the Melton Local Plan 1999, which seeks to ensure development is sympathetic to the site and surroundings. It is considered that the harm arising from the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.