Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the construction of a 1-bedroom bungalow and the recombining of 20 Pit Farm Road from two flats into a single dwelling with minor fenestration changes. 

The Committee received a presentation from the Specialist Development Management – Majors Officer, Kelly Jethwa.  The Committee noted that the surrounding area was comprised of large-detached properties.  The proposal was for the conversion of the main house into a single dwelling and to build a bungalow in the side garden and shared parking provided at the front.  When reviewing the planning history for the site it was noted that a number of planning applications had been submitted to achieve the result of creating one home in the main building.  However, the loss of a dwelling also needed to be considered given the existing house was currently converted into two flats.  To address that matter, the bungalow was proposed so that no net loss of housing would result.  Changes to the windows and doors at ground floor level would also be made and had been assessed as acceptable. 

The bungalow would be small and out of character due to its scale and design.  The Council’s Residential Design Guide SPD described how this area was distinct due to the large-detached houses that dated from the Victorian and Edwardian era, with traditional detailing, landscaped gardens and street alignment.  The bungalow would not respect the scale of the roofscape, appearance of existing dwellings and would lead to a loss of space between buildings.  The proposed dwelling would be overlooked by the side-facing windows in the existing property at 20 Pit Farm Road.  It would also overlook the proposed small private amenity garden.  Such overlooking would be harmful to the occupants of the new bungalow and the application was therefore recommended for refusal. 

The Chairman permitted Ward Councillors Dennis Booth and Joss Bigmore to speak for three minutes each respectively.

The Committee noted concerns raised that the existing dwelling had already been split into two flats which were comparatively smaller than their neighbouring dwellings.  The amenity area for the new dwelling was rather considered as adequate and in proportion for the size of the bungalow.  The architect had incorporated many of the features of the surrounding buildings in the design.  The new bungalow would not create excess bulk and the distance between it and neighbouring properties was similar to that which already existed of between 1m and 3m. Neighbouring residents supported the scheme and no objections had been received. 

The Committee noted clarification received from the Specialist Development Management – Majors Officer, Kelly Jethwa that the side facing windows could not be obscure glazed owing to those windows serving habitable rooms. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted the significant planning history associated with the site which had resulted in either refused or withdrawn schemes.  The Committee noted that clarification was sought on how the size of a bungalow was assessed given it was of a similar size to garages found locally.  In addition, why were habitable rooms excluded from having obscure glazing. 

The Specialist Development Management – Majors Officer, Kelly Jethwa confirmed that whilst there were examples of garages in this locality of varying sizes, they were outbuildings which were not for occupation.  Comparisons should be made to the sizes of the residential houses in the neighbourhood not to the garages.  A habitable room was a room that was occupied for domestic purposes and needed a good degree of sunlight such as a bedroom or living room but excluded rooms such as a bathroom or landing. 

The Committee noted concerns raised that it needed to be very careful in rejecting an officer recommendation based on character.  The bungalow represented an incongruous form of development owing to the overbearing nature of the neighbouring properties, particularly the donor property of no.20 Pit Farm Road and the effect upon the bungalow’s amenities. 

A motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application 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/00153 for the reasons outlined in the report.