Agenda item

Variation of conditions 2 and 20 and removal of condition 15 of permitted application 13/00349/FUL to amend approved plans to allow previously proposed integral garages to be used as habitable rooms and for the construction of 4 no. garages adjacent to western boundary. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Dimmack Brothers Ltd for the variation of conditions 2 and 20 and the removal of condition 15 of permitted application 13/00349/FUL to amend approved plans to allow the previously proposed integral garages to be used as habitable rooms and for the construction of four garages adjacent to the western boundary of the site.

Due to having an interest in the application as he knew an objector, the Development Manager left the room during consideration of this item and the Development Control Officer responsible for this application provided advice to Members regarding this application.

The officer provided an update to the committee. She stated that  they had received one additional letter of objection which raised concerns that the increase in number of buildings could reduce the area of surface water run off and permeability of the ground for rainwater. She referred to a previous email sent to officers in which concerns had been raised about the way the builders had approached the development, that a mock up of the proposed garages had been put up on site and that the builders were acting outside the agreed limits of the permission.

She informed Members that an additional letter had also been received from the Environment Agency advising that the council must satisfy itself that the proposed amendments would not increase flood risk elsewhere. The garages could be designed to allow the free ingress and egress of possible future flood flows so as not to displace them onto others. It should be ensured that resulting surface water run off was not increased and that ground level was not raised above existing levels. A condition was proposed to ensure that this could be achieved through the inclusion of permeable areas to the garage floors.

The Officer also advised that the Flood Risk Management Team had responded to confirm they were satisfied with drainage details submitted and but required a slight amendment to the plan to show that drainage was connected not to the gully outside the site but extended to the surface water sewer network in Dennison Street. An amendment would be required to condition 2 to refer to the correct and updated plans.

Officers provided some information in relation to an issue of relative densities of the application site in relation to the adjacent site which had been raised by a Member at the site visit.

Mr Roger Pierce addressed the committee on behalf of residents of 72 and 74 Huntington Road. He raised concerns about the accuracy of the site plan and reminded Members that the application was retrospective as work had already commenced on site. He expressed the opinion that if granted the proposals would lead to overdevelopment of the site and would lead to a loss of outlook from the living areas for existing residents and loss of residential amenity due to the outlook onto garage roofs.

Mr Chris Nugent, the applicant, addressed the committee and explained that he had submitted the application to ensure that the full potential of the site was realised for both existing and new residents. He pointed out that the new footprint would still be less than when the site was set out as a car repair workshop.With regard to the mock up on site, he explained that this was not intended to aggravate residents but to show how invisible the changes would be to residents.. He advised that the roofline of the garages had been designed following lengthy consideration so residents would not be able to see the garages. Residents had had the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes and the majority had been in favour of these.

Some members raised concerns that he apex of the garage roofs would be able to be seen by residents using their rear gardens although it was pointed out that the main objector at no 72 would not be able to see the roofs due to considerable tree foliage. Discussion took place as to whether it would be possible to lower the height of the garage roofs by using a different type of tile. The applicant advised that he would be happy to do what was necessary to be able to optimise the site for existing residents and was willing to consider the possibility of lowering the roof pitches and using roller garage doors.

Resolved:  That the application be deferred to a future meeting of the committee.

Reason:     In order that further discussion can take place between the applicant and officers with regard to the possibility of lowering the pitch of the garage roofs to make them less visible.