20/00300/FUL - Land Rear Of 250 St Albans Road
Decision Maker: Development Management Committee
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Change of use from workshop/office to
The Chair introduced the item to the committee and invited the Development Management Team Leader to present his report.
The Development Management Team Leader summarised the report for the committee and referred to the update sheet and a revised drawing that had been received. The Chair invited Ms. Angela Banderas to address the committee.
Ms. Banderas explained that from the outset, the application had caused confusion amongst local residents by the change of address to 250 St Albans Road, when in fact the address was, to all practical extents, in Cromer Road. She added that the road was very tight on space and further obstructed by bins from the nearby shops. Ms. Banderas also complained that the people responsible for the application had left a car in Cromer Road for five months, in a road that was already over-crowded and this application would result in increased parking congestion.
Ms. Banderas then dealt with her concerns over the proposed building and stated that she felt the garage was too small to hold a vehicle, the windows overlooked her property and also the Balmoral Road property to the rear. She added that the dormers and higher roofline would block her light. She added that the property was never used as a workshop and that the workshop building was used merely as a cynical stepping stone to the current application.
Ms. Banderas concluded by imploring the committee to refuse the application as it was causing considerable upset to her and the other local residents.
The Chair thanked her for her comments, summed up the salient planning points of the submission and asked the Development Management Team Leader to address the four main planning issues raised.
The Development Management Team Leader addressed the points:
1. The confusing change of address – any change of address would require an application to the Post Office and the council, but accepted that it may well end up as a Cromer Road address. The application referred to where the land was sited.
2. Bins obstructing the road - it was not possible for planning to control where bins were left by other properties. But the application detailed both bin and cycle storage.
3. Parking issues- the proposal had an integrated garage and the garden area to one side of the property could hold a further vehicle if required. Thus the application was in accordance with the maximum parking standards for a two-bedroom dwelling.
4. Overlooking- the dormer windows were to the front of the property, facing directly down the turning head. Thus, the Balmoral Road property to the rear was not overlooked at all, nor were properties in Cromer Road as the dormer windows faced directly down the turning head. Accordingly, the size and positioning of the windows was considered acceptable.
The Chair invited Councillor Ian Stotesbury, Ward Councillor for Callowland, to address the committee.
Councillor Stotesbury thanked Ms. Banderas for her comments and confirmed that the application had caused confusion amongst the residents and generated strong feelings. The application had been refused once and would add to the already difficult parking issues. Local residents strongly resented the infill of every small parcel of land. Additionally, the site was extremely close to Balmoral Road and the residents there were very unhappy with the view of a sheer brick wall.
He confirmed that the initial building of a workshop had remained entirely dormant and had clearly been a stepping stone to the current application for a residence. The councillor explained that he felt that although the new application was to address the reasons for the refusal and also the subsequent rejection of the appeal, this new design did not go far enough. The living space was still very small upstairs, the bedrooms had a limited area in which to stand upright. The proposal was substandard in size and this could well be grounds for refusal.
Councillor Stotesbury concluded by urging the committee to refuse the application.
The Chair then invited the Development Management Team Leader to comment on the changes to the application to address the grounds for the first refusal.
The Development Management Team Leader drew the committee’s attention to paragraph 6.4 of his report, which detailed the floor area where the ceiling height was above 1.5m. He also pointed out paragraph 3.1, which provided the gross internal area of the development and the sizes of the amenity areas. All these were above the minimum requirements and therefore he submitted that the proposed accommodation was perfectly suitable, with properly sized dormer windows giving good standards of natural light and outlook. Whilst the ceiling heights were mentioned in the reasons for refusal, this had now been addressed.
The Chair summed up briefly and stated that he felt that much of the concern from residents about this proposal was less to do with planning and more to do with the way the developer had approached the application. He added that the building was now there and it was difficult to see how the proposed design would create any additional harm.
There followed general comments from the committee members who were in agreement with the application.
The Development Management Team Leader addressed one question about the possible course of action, should the developer not comply closely with the planning requirements. He assured the committee that should this situation occur, the enforcement team could step in and ensure compliance.
The Chair then proposed a vote to approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.
In accordance with Standing Committee Procedure Rules, paragraph 4.2, Councillor Peter Jeffree requested that it be recorded in the minutes how members cast their votes.
Those members voting for the motion:
Councillors Bell, Collett, Jeffree, Johnson, Mills, Pattinson, Smith and Watkin.
Those members voting against the motion:
Councillor Sharpe excused himself and did not vote on the motion, as he had been absent for a short part of the deliberations.
The motion was declared to be CARRIED by eight to none with no abstentions.
That planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a legal
agreement under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure
the planning obligations listed below and the following conditions:
Section 106 Heads of Terms
i) To secure the provision of the area of land forming the western part of the application site as private garden land for the proposed dwelling.
1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning
Site location plan
Block plan (April 2020)
Existing and Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations (Amended 18/05/2020)
Section (March 2020)
3. All the external surfaces of the development shall be finished in materials to match the colour, texture and style of the existing building.
4. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until a detailed soft landscaping scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved soft landscaping scheme shall be carried out not later than the first available planting and seeding season after completion of development. Any
trees or plants whether new or existing which within a period of five years die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species or in accordance with details approved by the local Planning Authority.
5. The integral garage shall only be used for the parking of vehicles and shall not be used as habitable accommodation or for any other purpose, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
6. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended
(or any modifications or re-enactment thereof), no development
permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D, E and G of the
Order shall be carried out to the dwellings hereby approved without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.
1. IN907 - Positive-proactive statement – GRANT
2. IN910 - Building Regulations
3. IN912 - Hours of Construction
4. IN909 - Street Naming and Numbering
5. IN913 - Community Infrastructure Levy Liability
6. IN914 - Section 106 Obligation
Report author: Paul Baxter
Publication date: 10/06/2020
Date of decision: 03/06/2020
Decided at meeting: 03/06/2020 - Development Management Committee