Agenda item

This item includes two supplementary reports

Councillor Simon Tagg spoke on this application.

Amended recommendation proposed by Councillor Holland and seconded by Councillor Northcott.

Councillor Simon Tagg, speaking on behalf of residents stated that there were four areas of objection to this application: the design and scale of the proposed extension; highways and parking concerns; impact on trees and the extent to which the property was to be used as a House in Multiple Occupation.  The extension detracted materially from the character of the original dwelling and the design of a group of dwellings forming the street scene which went against Policy H18 (design for residential extensions).  The Highways Authority had objected to the parking provision as there was only space provided for two vehicles.

Plans and photographs were shown to Members.

Councillor Holland supported the objections raised by Councillor Tagg.  The extension did not sit behind the development line of Beresford Crescent. Reference was made to the Landscape Development Section’s comments regarding the tree root protection areas being unaffected if only two parking spaces were provided.  The Highways Authority stated that a development of that size required off-street parking for three vehicles.  The existing garage could not count as a parking space as it was not 3m by 6m internally and the applicant had already stated that the garage space would be used for cycle storage.

The property in the past had been used as a HMO and there were concerns that the extension, including the additional bedroom space would again be used for that purpose.  Larger HMO’s came under a different use class.  If this was to be used as a family home, Councillor Holland stated that he would like to see three parking spaces within the curtilage and, if it were to be used as a HMO he would expect to see three spaces minimum.  Finally, with regard to the impact on the root protection area, the applicant had indicated that the roots from a mature highways tree intruded very slightly on the proposed development.  Councillor Holland stated that the tree was already there and the proposed development would infringe on the root protection area by 1.7m.

Councillor Moffat had concerns as to the size of the proposed extension and close proximity to the pavement and agreed with previous comments of Members. 

Councillor Northcott was concerned about it becoming a HMO which would be wrong in this area.  He would second the proposal to refuse on the grounds that it was far too big and for the objections received from County Highways.

Councillor Reddish also shared concerns about the size and the massing and, should it become a HMO, huge concerns regarding parking.  A possibility could be another application with the extension set back by as much as a metre.

Councillor John Williams stated that this had been a Bourneville Development and a garden village.  The extension was too large for a family home and suspected that it would become a HMO.

Councillor Jones had concerns about the massing of the proposal and proximity to the boundary.

The Head of Planning, Shawn Fleet made reference to the scale and mass of the extension.  Side extensions on corner plots were tricky.  Plots were prominent on the corner and sat slightly forward.  These were 2-3 bedroom semi’s and standard house type existing within the Borough and around the country. Shawn Fleet understood the concerns of Members and added that the proposal did technically fall below the HMO separate use class order.  Referring to just the scale and massing, this would be difficult to sustain at appeal.  If, when viewed from different viewpoints, for example Pilkington Avenue, there was greater exposure and this plot was different to the other three in the vicinity that would give weighting to the refusal.  Regarding the parking, it was clear where the County Highways were coming from.

The Chair asked Shawn Fleet if, whether or not the property became a HMO, was or was not a material consideration.  Shawn Fleet advised that, with six bedrooms or less it would not be a separate use class or a new planning use as a HMO so it still fell within the traditional residential categories.

Councillor Northcott stated that there was obvious concerns regarding the end use of the property.  Highways were basing their facts on the cumulative impact on the character of the area from excessive cars and not having capacity for car parking spaces.  If this application were permitted, it could allow other houses to adopt a similar pathway resulting in future car parking issues.

Councillor Holland challenged the definition of a HMO stating that a large HMO was defined as a property that was rented to five separate households or more, therefore if this property were to be rented out as a HMO and every bedroom was occupied, it would count as a HMO.  However, the application could not be judged on who may or may not occupy the building in the future as that was not a relevant planning consideration.    Councillor Holland moved refusal on the grounds of size and massing; impact on the root protection area of the mature highways tree and impact on the highway and parking.

The proposal was too large and would reach closer to the curtilage of the boundary of the property than the one on the opposite side of the road.  It would break the development line and would impinge on the root protection area of the mature tree.

Councillor John Williams asked if the fact that the area was designed by the Bourneville Trust and was a ‘garden village’, had any merit.

The Council’s Development Management Team Manager, Elaine Moulton stated that she could not confirm whether Beresford Crescent was part of the Bourneville trust Development but could confirm that this area had not been identified as having any special character within any policies of the Development Plan.  

Resolved:     That the application be refused for the following reasons:

(i)    Unacceptable design and massing resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the area.

(ii)  Unacceptable level of off street car parking which will lead to on street car parking problems and highway safety implications,

(iii) Harmful impact of the development on the root protection area of street trees