Agenda item

1 Belvoir Avenue, Ab Kettleby

Applicant:     Mr & Mrs A Watkinson

Location:      1 Belvoir Avenue, Ab Kettleby

Proposal:      Erection of a detached bungalow to the rear of 1 Belvoir Avenue.

 

            (a) The Planning Officer (LP) stated that:

The proposal is a full planning application for the erection of a detached bungalow in the garden of number 1 Belvoir Avenue.

Concern has been raised with regards to the impact of amenity of neighbouring residents and the proposal amended during the course of the planning application.

When assessing the proposal against both the local plan and the Neighbourhood plan which is given limited weight the proposal complies with the policies of the Melton Local Plan and is recommended for approval.

 

(b) The Chair read out a statement on behalf of Cllr Orson, the Ward Cllr.

·         Visited the site and viewed from 3 Belvoir Avenue and Quorn Avenue.

·         Bungalow would severely impact 3 Belvoir Avenue. Loss of amenity beyond what’s reasonably acceptable for infill property.

·         Limited support for proposal.

·         Bigger than imagined and would impact No.3.

(c) Adrian Watkinson, the Applicant was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Land was given to him by family who live at 1 Belvoir Avenue.

·         The single storey, 1 bed bungalow would be as low key as possible and constructed from same style bricks and tiles as surrounding property.

·         Reason for the build is to downsize and use as a retirement home.

A Cllr asked if the applicant would accept a personal tie.

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services explained that this would limit the occupancy only to Mr and Mrs Watkinson.

 

Mr Watkinson replied yes, as they will retire there.

 

The Solicitor to the Council stated that it was unusual to ask for a personal tie and doubted whether that would be appropriate.

 

Cllr Rhodes proposed to permit and said that to apply a personal tie would be a burden to the family.

 

Cllr cumbers seconded.

A Cllr explained they wanted to know if the applicant intended to live there and could see the merits for it. It would encourage smaller houses on the market. They described that when viewed from 3 Belvoir Avenue, the garden land is slightly higher. It would severely impact no.3 and leaned towards concern.

 

A Cllr agreed and suggested that 1 Belvoir Avenue may not always be within the family and expressed concerns of how close the bungalow would be.

 

The Chair stated that any future buyer would be aware.

 

A Cllr queried the separation distance.

 

The Chair explained the bungalow would be at an offset right angle and window to window, exceeded the minimum distance.

 

A Cllr reiterated the amenity to No.1. The bungalow would mean No.1 would not be in keeping with the garden taken away.

 

The Chair pointed out on the plans that the distance to the corner of No.3 is 7.6m. He asked whether it is known that to sit the bungalow down would prevent overlooking issue to No.3.

 

The Development Manager stated no.

 

A Cllr stated that the proximity was too close.

 

A Cllr expressed concern about the impact on No.3 and suggested strategic planting.

 

The Chair questioned whether they’d be encouraging the applicant to do the planting screen.

 

A Cllr confirmed that yes they would.

 

The Chair highlighted condition 6 - details of the boundary treatment.

 

A Cllr queried whether the condition could be reworded.

 

The Development Manager replied yes, members could reword.

 

A Cllr stated that the gardens are narrow, and questioned whether this could block sunlight/daylight.

 

A Cllr asked whether the screening should be for No.3’s liking not member’s.

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that conditions cannot be created that involve third parties. They can be consulted but it could not be left in their hands.

The Chair asked if the proposer and seconder would permit subject to a satisfactory resolution.

 

A Cllr queried the parking.

 

The Chair informed them that it would be between the existing and proposed property. To the right hand side.

 

Motion to permit as per the Officer’s recommendation.

 

5 members voted for. 6 members voted against.

 

The motion was lost.

 

Cllr Higgins stated that the proposed dwelling would compromise the amenity of No.3 and would be unacceptable. Contrary to Policy D1 of the adopted Melton Plan.

 

Cllr Glancy seconded for the same reason.

 

A vote was held. 7 members voted to propose to refuse. 3 members voted against this. 1 member abstained from the vote.

 

Permission refused.

 

Determination:

The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its length, height and proximity to the boundary of the site, would result in and unacceptable intrusion into the amenities enjoyed by the adjacent property, no 3 Belvoir Avenue. It would therefore compromise the amenity of the neighbouring properties and would be contrary to policy D1 of the Adopted Melton Local Plan 2011-36