Agenda item

2 Vaughan Avenue Bottesford

Reference:	20/00651/FUL
Location:	2 Vaughan Avenue Bottesford NG13 0EF
Proposal:	Proposed 3 bedroom bungalow with integral garage

 

The Planning Development Manager addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and that the recommendation was for approval.

 

Mrs Parker pointed out that there had been a drafting error on the original report which showed the property images as being wrongly positioned and incorrectly labelled. This had been resolved and Members had received the correct version which was also available on the Council’s website.

 

The Planning Development Manager responded to questions as follows:

 

·         The width distance between the garage and no. 2 Vaughan Avenue was 0.45m which would not be wide enough to accommodate disabled aids such as a wheelchair

·         Images showing the previous refused application next to this application would be available during debate so that proposed and previous developments could be compared

 

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to  public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a 3 minute presentation:

 

·      Councillor Bob Bayman, Bottesford Parish Council

Councillor Bayman responded to Member questions as follows:

The Parish Council agreed that the size of the garage and driveway was too small to accommodate two vehicles and there was no safe car parking provision on the roadside between the property and the end of the road

 

·      Richard Colchester

 

·      Malcolm Bunn, Agent, Hana & Co

Mr Bunn responded to a Member question that the trees and shrubs recommended at the side of the driveway would be of the type to grow to the height of the sill of the car window in line with planning regulations to ensure good visibility

 

In response to Member questions, the Planning Development Manager responded:

 

·           The garage size had been increased to 6 x 3m internal dimensions which was in line with Leicestershire County Council’s regulations and the requirement of two off road car parking spaces had been met.

·           With regard to loss of trees, this was partly due to visibility and condition 4 allowed for further details on landscaping to be supplied

·           The previous application was referred to in the report but the application before them was the one for consideration at the meeting

·           It was noted that poor design and overspill parking which cluttered the street scene could be used as a reason for refusal under Local Plan policy D1.

                

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         Due to restricted visibility, there was concern for safety when reversing out of the driveway

·         The property was felt to be too densely populated on the site and in conflict with policy D1 for refusal

·         Lack of amenity space for the neighbouring property was raised

·         The development was felt to be poorly designed and not able to accommodate a wheelchair or access for a wheelie bin to the side of the property

·         Members felt the development was garden grabbing and constituted over development of the site 

·         The design of the property was felt to be better than the previous application and should the applicant wish to continue to develop the site, it was suggested they discuss options with the Parish Council to reach a compromise on the contentious areas of the application

 

Councillor Browne proposed that the application be refused due to being in conflict with policy D1 of the Local Plan by virtue of its scale and design, would represent an over development of the site, would be out of keeping and the parking provision being insufficient. Councillor Steadman seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That application 20/00651/FUL be REFUSED, contrary to the Officer recommendation set out in the report, due to being in conflict with policy D1 of the Local Plan by virtue of its scale and design, would represent an over development of the site, would be out of keeping and the parking provision being insufficient.

 

(Unanimous)