Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for construction of a new two storey dwelling (with room in the roof) with basement level and associated external works following demolition of existing bungalow and garage.  (Amended plans received 05.11.21 to reduce height and remove roof terrace).

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, John Busher.  The Committee noted that the site was located at the upper end of the Mount in the urban area of Guildford.  The proposal was for the replacement of the existing bungalow which occupied the site with a new dwelling which would be set over four floors.  The existing bungalow was a modest sized property with two bedrooms.  The property benefitted from a detached garage which was located to the front of the site level with the Mount.  The proposed dwelling stretched boundary to boundary across the width of the site as well as garage accommodation to the front.  The existing bungalow was modest in size and sat comfortably within the streetscene however the proposed dwelling was built with a minimal gap to the western boundary and closer proximity to number 84.  The proposed new dwelling would be a poor and bland design.  The large dormer on the side elevation gives the dwelling an unbalanced appearance which was further exacerbated by the proposed roofscape.  The different eaves heights resulted in a property which was cramped on a narrow site compared to other properties within the surrounding area.  The lack of space to the side boundaries would also cause harm to the amenities of number 84a The Mount located to the east of the application site.  The maximum ridge height of the proposed dwelling would be 3.8 metres higher than the neighbouring property, and the considerable difference in height of the two dwellings combined with a replacement dwelling being spread across the full width of the site and its overall scale and mass would result in an overbearing impact on number 84.  The application was therefore recommended for refusal as it was deemed contrary to policies D1 of the 2019 Local Plan and G1 of the 2003 Local Plan.     

The Chairman permitted Councillor Cait Taylor to speak in her capacity as ward councillor on the application for three minutes. 

The Committee noted comments made that the main volume of the proposed home was accepted in the officer’s report. A garage would be provided with no car space to the front which was a more sensible use of the plot space.  The area was characterised by a mix of property styles with many having rooms in the roof.  Out of 45 homes only 4 were chalet bungalows.  The rest were at least all two storey homes.  The proposed scheme at no.86 only marginally increased the footprint of the existing bungalow and did not project any further to the rear than the existing bungalow and did not represent a form of over-development.  The neighbouring property at no.88 was significantly larger and was in full view when travelling along the Mount.  It was therefore difficult to understand how a two-storey home with a roof pitch less than the plot above was an issue.  The architect had created a contemporary design, using natural materials, minimising the carbon footprint of the home.  The design attempted to create a balanced composition of the volumes using the changes in materials to emphasise the key activity areas.  The dwelling did not extend the full width of the site and was only 58cm wider to the street frontage than the existing bungalow and 38cm to the side to the east of the site.   

The Committee discussed the application and was interested to know if the size of the rooms were equivalent to the National Space Standards as they appeared much bigger and whether that had influenced the width of the property.  The Committee also noted comments that the applicant was trying to achieve a lifetime home standard which was a positive in creating enhanced disabled access if needed in the future, a disabled bathroom if needed, electric vehicle charging points and bicycle storage.  Concerns were also raised regarding the overall volume of the proposed property.

The Committee noted a query regarding the location of the site boundary and whether access was provided via the Mount as it would be narrower than it was originally. Further comments were noted that the property appeared top heavy and cramped on a narrow site.  House numbers 88 and 90 were also located on significantly larger site. The wall facing no 84A would also be a blank brick wall and was therefore an overbearing form of development.

The Head of Place, Dan Ledger confirmed that the room sizes proposed would have been compliant with the national space standards.  With regard to the site plan it related to the parking for the neighbouring property where the existing parking situation was to be retained.  A car port was proposed for the new dwelling which gives a raised garden above the car port which would provide the parking for the new dwelling.

A motion was moved and seconded to refuse application 21/P/01496 which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

RESOLVED to refuse application 21/P/01496 for the reasons as outlined in the report.