Transcript

Welcome to the planning committee. Please be aware that the meeting is being recorded and it's being streamed live. We have screens all the way around the room so you can see the presentation. I'd like to welcome the invited speakers. I'll invite you to speak at the appropriate time. When you do speak, there's a black button in the middle of the unit. You need to press that in order to be heard. And of course, you will then, once you press it, you will then be on camera. So there you go. Speeches will be timed as per the public speaking scheme and I will ask you to stop when the time is expired. Operation procedures, should there be an alarm, then leave by the doors, go up the stairs, out of the council house, across the crossing and assemble on the green opposite the council house. Councillor Welsh is present, just to mention, Councillor Welsh is the cabinet member under which the planning department comes and he's here to observe. He's not a member of the committee and he won't be speaking or voting. Can you please switch off all mobile phones or switch them to silent and place them away from the unit so we don't get interference? The last thing is, we may need to pause between agenda items to enable speakers to leave and others to arrive. Right, we'll start with declarations of interest. Members? Oh, I'm sorry, apologies. I missed apologies. Aisha, have you got any apologies? Thank you, chair. Apologies from councillors. Okay, thank you very much. Right now, declarations of interest. Members? None? Okay. Declarations of contacts on planning applications. Members. Oh, Jackie. Microphone. Sorry, no, they were the late representations. Nothing apart from those, thanks. I didn't hear that, sorry. No, I was remembering the late representations we had but nothing apart from the late representations. Okay. Minutes of the meetings, or the meeting. Sorry, sorry, chair. Microphone. You can't be heard at home, otherwise. Yes, sorry, chair, I should have pointed out that application 3 is in lower Stoke Ward also, and obviously, it's from one of our councillors and he's my councillor in my ward as well. I'm just declaring it? Yes, I'm sure the councillor is very happy about that, with anonymity. Well, I thought I'd better point it out. For legal. Okay. So, moving on. Minutes of the meetings or the meeting held on the 23rd of May. Can we agree those minutes? A second, yeah, okay. Well, it'll be agreed. I can see everybody nodding. Late representations, these have been circulated and they can be viewed online. And so, we go then to item 6, which is the garage block, rear of 152174 Dillertford Avenue. And we've got a petition here submitted by Councillor Brown, and we have a registered speaker. I see they're both at the speaker's point, so I'll call you at the appropriate time. And also, the agent, Rachel Mathewson, has submitted a statement which will be read out. So, we're going to begin then with our solicitor, Remy, who's going to read out the petition. Thank you, Chair. We do have one petition in relation to this item. The petition organiser is Councillor Brown. It has 39 signatures and the statement reads as follows. We the undersigned petition the Council to refuse the planning application PL/2023/0000197 to replace the garage block at the rear of 152174 Dillertford Avenue with new housing being one times four bedroom and one times five bedroom. The justifications for the statement read as follows. Residents have the following material planning concerns, A increase in traffic and demand for parking, B safety concerns due to increased vehicle movements, C increase in antisocial behaviour gatherings and litter, D overlooking and loss of privacy, E loss of light, F houses are unattractive and have a looming presence, G, potential harm to three trees and the final H, negative effect on residents from construction, potential subsidence and flooding. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much for that, Remy. We now go to the planning officer, Grace. It is Grace to respond -- sorry, not to respond, to actually read out the application. I have gone to the wrong part of the agenda. Grace. Thank you. So this application is for demolition of existing carriages and the erection of two affordable dwellings with associated parking and landscaping. So we've got an aerial overview of the site. That's outlined in red. We have delivered avenue to the north of the site and we have (inaudible) to the south. You can see that our footpaths running alongside the site, these will be retained throughout development. Then we've got the site location, just to show a bit more detail of the site. Where the existing are, the current landscaping, and overall appearance. We've got a photo of the entrance to the site. Then we've got the layout. So the layout shows one three bed and one four bed dwelling. Since the committee report was written, the parking arrangement for plot two has been moved to the rear of the dwelling instead of in front of the dwelling. The separation distance is for a plot to Dilipford avenue is 12 metres and to Eibid road plots it is 16 metres. There will be cycle storage and refuge area and landscaping secured by condition. Got proposed elevation of the three bed property which is at the front of the site. We've got any windows that are at first floor will be obscure glazed and this will prevent any overlooking on the neighbours. Then we've got the four bed which is plot one which is at the rear of the site and again any side windows that are in the property will be obscure glazed. Here we've got the external works so this just shows the overall appearance of the site. Where the boundaries are going to go, there's going to be an increase in biodeversion gain as a result of the application due to the current site just being hard standing. We've got an existing street scene looking towards the rear of the site. You can see we've got Eibid road to the left and Dilipford avenue to the right of the screen. We've got the proposed street scene taken from a similar view so we can see plot one property at the back and again there's sufficient separation distances between the property and the existing houses along Dilipford avenue and Eihoo bridge road. Then another street scene from the rear looking down the site. You can see again that the house is in line with in terms of the height with all the other properties around the area. In terms of parking there will be a loss of parking as a result of this development. The site, whenever I've been out on site, there's generally only three or four cars parked in the garage site. However, there will be a total loss of 16 spaces. However, it is considered that these spaces can adequately be covered by existing by the other streets alongside it. So we have Healy road which currently only has which is this one outlined with the laser pen. That road is generally has no houses facing on to that street and therefore is generally very empty. The only car that is in that photo is mine. And then we've got two photos of Eihoo bridge road, Eihoo bridge road has all off street parking and so there's very limited cars on street. And then we look at Dilipford avenue, you can see to one side of Dilipford avenue there are parking because obviously Dilipford avenue, one side of Dilipford avenue does not have off street parking so that's where I think a lot of people would park their cars but you can still see there is still spaces and capacity for further cars to be parked on site on that road. And then we've got, looking the other way, which we haven't really got many cars parked alongside there. We've just got some photos, some photos of the site. The top photo and the bottom photo are taken on different days until you can see the site is quite underutilised at the moment, with very little cars ever parked there. The footpath to the rear of Dilipford avenue will be retained. And then we've got some more photos, the tree you can see in the photo will be retained and there will be further landscaping secured by condition. Overall, we consider that this proposal is acceptable, it will provide two affordable dwellings and bring a site that is currently underutilised back into use. Thank you. Thank you for that, Grace. We now then move to speakers and I think first we have Matthew Walker. You have three minutes, Matthew. Okay. Afternoon, everyone. My name is Matthew Walker and I live on 55Mombridge Road, directly opposite plot one. I bought my property in 2018 with the knowledge that there were only one single storey garages to the rear of the property that were no more than three metres in height. The proposed scheme is now showing the buildings in excess of nine metres in height and are only around one metre away from my property. I planned my garden not knowing that this is going to be built and have a top patio area which is used frequently. I am concerned that the noise of a five bedroom property less than a metre away from this space will vastly reduce my enjoyment of the area. This is particularly the case that there is also a window on the side elevation, which could overlook my property if positioned there. If this is a bathroom window, I assume that at the very least that this will be obscured and will have a fixed casement which cannot be opened. I also question whether overlooking could also be a problem with the roof lights in the roof space. If the roof lights can be opened, this will allow the occupants to look directly over from a higher position into our bedrooms. On top of this, I'm a little confused that the design access statement is different to the site plan. One shows a plot directly in line with our property, blocking all sunlight to the rear. The other would allow the house to be centralised between two properties with more space in between our boundary. Can you please confirm which design is correct? Some final points, I also question whether there is need for a five bedroom house as this is not in keeping with the area. I know we sit in an area which is predominantly existing of three bedroom houses. I have also noticed that there is a tree at the rear end of my property which has not been illustrated within the plans. This sits on the proposed plan side elevation of the property and currently provides us with privacy at the rear. If this property is going to be approved and the building is going to be so close to my boundary from a safety perspective, what considerations and measurements are you going to put in place? I have a young family who enjoy regular use of our garden all year round. What is going to be done to keep us safe? To summarise my points, this property is in excess of 9.8 metres when the local house is around 8.1 metres. I have concerns with possible overlooking from side windows which directly look onto my property around a metre away from my boundary. I'm unsure of which plans show the correct proposed site. Does this have to be directly in line with our property blocking all sunlight to the rear? Is a five bedroom house necessary and in keeping with the surrounding area? What safety precautions will be taken to keep my family safe? Finally, I have also been informed by a local agent that these properties so close in proximity to our existing home will drastically devalue our property. My wife and I have put many years into renovating our home. If this proposed plan is approved, our view will be a large brick wall with cladding which will appear directly on our boundary. What are you going to do about this? Thank you very much.

Thank you for that, Matthew. We now go to Richard. You have five minutes, Richard. Thank you, Chair. I just want to focus on a couple of issues here. And I notice it says there that the main issues are the impact upon the visual amenity and the impact upon residential amenity. And that's what I want to focus on. And I've read through this in some depth and I understand the tilted balance arguments. And yes, this is a windfall site and we do need the housing. And I really appreciate that. Can I have one of the photos up there, please, that shows the view into the proposed site? One of those -- yeah, I guess it's the sort of top one there. And I just want it there. But in terms of the context, and you can see from the panels just how close this is. This is probably best described as trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. And I just want to go through a couple of things here. On 2.1, policy DE1 of the local plan. Proposals must respect and enhance their surroundings and positively contribute towards the local identity and character of the area. This doesn't really do that. And it also says 2.2, it should be sympathetic to local character and history surrounding built environment and landscape setting. And a note on 2.4, the SBD expects new residential development to respond to the size, shape and rhythm of surrounding plot layouts. And you admit that the proposal sits at odds with this. You actually state that. But you've fact that the tilted balance overrides all that. I'm here to challenge that because I think you could go another route. You've got 9.8 meters and you've got 9 meters. And Matthew's explained all the reasons why he doesn't like that. And I understand that he does. Why are we building bungalows here on this site? We do have -- we're all getting older. There's a demand for that. And I think a couple of bungalows on this site would solve this issue. You wouldn't be going up to almost 10 meters in height. You would be making use of this windfall site. It would be perfect in terms of meeting the demands of the local plan and our aging people because there is a demand for bungalows. So I think there's a compromise here. And I guess what I am saying is -- can we not think again and ask the applicant to go back and just based on all that we've heard here and you can see from that photograph just how tight this is, and I'll repeat it, this is a core into a pint pot. But there's probably a better way of doing this which ticks a lot of boxes on both sides if we go down the lower roofed bungalow option. And I would ask the applicant and the committee to ask them to go back and think again on this one. That's probably about it. Thank you for that, Richard. We now go to Grace, the planning officer. Grace? There's a statement. I missed the statement. Rachel Matthewson's statement. Carolyn is going to read that. Thank you, chair. Citizen housing have identified a number of garage sites across the city that have the potential to be redeveloped for affordable housing. This site on Dilleford Avenue is one of these such sites. This site has reached -- has a number of garages demolished and cleared over the years having reached the end of their economical life span. Currently nine garages remain on the site that are approaching the end of their economical life span. We have completed a strategic asset management review which has identified several issues on these sites including blight, anti-social behavior. This makes these sites viable as a garage asset and does not provide benefit to the community. Where we can, we want to invest in local communities by providing much needed high quality new homes and address the issues that occur on these sites, improving the area for the benefit of all residents. We believe this is also an essential part of our commitment to help address the housing shortage in Coventry and help mitigate significant cost the council bears for temporary accommodation for families living in unsuitable accommodation. Coventry housing have been working in partnership with the city council to progress these sites through the planning approvals process with consultation having been carried out with counselors and preapplication advice sought from Coventry planners prior to the submission of the planning application. The scheme for one three bed and one four bed house will provide much needed affordable housing for rent by families. It is proposed that the houses will be constructed to achieve an A rated EPC certificate for energy efficiency placing this type of residential build in the top 1.5% when compared to quality standards measured nationally. This also means that not only will the new homes help tackle fuel poverty they will be zero carbon ready based on the current government definition. New build developments have been completed on eight former garage sites and other locations in the city to this standard providing 24 new homes for rent. Columns currently underway on a further eight sites will provide 19 new homes. Beyond these two schemes will take ambitions to redevelop further sites with a multimillion pound investment in housing for the people of Coventry. It's worth noting that the sites themselves if left untouched present liability issues from a health and safety perspective where we are unable to successfully develop sites we are left with limited choices for their future use. You will note the report being presented to the committee by the planning officer recommends a scheme for approval for the reasons outlined in its contents. Thank you. Thank you very much for that, Carolyn. Now we go to Grace. Grace. Thank you. I will just clarify a few points. There is only one three bed and one four bed house. There was previously a proposal for five bed but this has been no longer a case. It's only one three bed and one four bed. The surrounding properties are generally either terraced or semi‑attached properties with generally approximately on average three bedrooms so therefore the number of rooms in these two properties would be in keeping with the area. I would personally disagree with the idea to put bungalows there because there are no other bungalows around that site. They are all two story dwellings or blocks or flats. There are also separation distances, so at the four, from the, I will get the plan up, so at the nearest property from the side elevation of plot one to the nearest property on Ivord road is 15 meters. On from the nearest from the side elevation of plot one to the rear elevation of Dilliford avenue is 12 meters. These do accord with our standards and therefore we find it acceptable because they are they have done it within our recommended standards. Also the overall, it's important to bring this site back into use because it's a derelict area, obviously anyone can by putting these houses on the site it will create eyes on the street, it will create a much nicer landscaped area that will be more opening for people to walk by to use the existing footpath as a way to go from A to B. I think that's addressed most of the comments that have been raised. Thank you for that then, Grace. We're going to members now. I'm going to start with Roger. Thank you, chair. The concept of building on garage sites is generally a good one, and I know citizens are looking at sites all over the city it's not the only one in the ward either. And there's a need for additional housing, there's no argument with that, but I have reservations about the scale of this, and Councillor Brown has raised this maybe putting words in his mouth talking about it's overpowering to the scale of what you're trying to build to the site it's fitting in. If the officer could actually confirm a few things. Number one, raised by residents is the problem of overlooking. I think the report clearly states that any window that potentially overlooks any other property will be basically a frosted window. There's other terminology, I think that's right. Trees, can you confirm that there is no loss of trees? Those clearly concerned were the residents about that. I notice a comment in the report about the passageway wasn't sealed, I didn't actually understand that, maybe they mean the right of way were they going to close it off, was that an original concept, there is a right of way technically and I think it's controlled by common city council because there's mixed ownership in that area. So that in the plan is clearly open but that was raised by one of the residents. Parking is an issue, and I can see the pictures, I know the site very well, we call it displacement parking and you've already said that your car is anyone on the one road and Healy road is there and there's no houses on it and it looks okay and delivered. It doesn't always work that way, we have problems when the school comes out, the school is almost next door, sometimes buses have a problem getting by, it varies according to the time of day, especially in the evening it's a real problem. We will have to move those cars off that parking space onto the main roads and the numbers have grown in the last five years, it's just the way it is, so I have concerns about that as well and I wonder what the officer thinks about that. At the moment I haven't got anything else, as I said I think the concept is always a good idea, I just think this is overpowering and it's interesting that one idea has been raised is maybe bungalows will fit better there. I know there is a need for four bedroom houses and potentially five bedroom houses, it's a shortage, citizens are keen on it, but I also realise bungalows allow people to move out of big houses into small places, that's why nearby we got Swift Court, let up 13 houses to citizens, so we had four bedroom houses, three bedroom houses being let loose, so allowing a bungalow to be built there isn't such a big deal, it actually would loosen up a couple more houses, so I put that to the officer as well, thank you. OK, windows, yes I confirm they are obscure glazed, any side facing windows on the first floor are all going to be obscure glazed, that is going to be, that is a condition as part of the application, so that will be ensured. In terms of the footpath, the footpath is outside of the site boundary, that will remain open for residents to walk by throughout the construction period. In terms of parking, again I acknowledge there is displaced parking, however whenever I have been out to the site multiple times, various times of the day, sometimes in the middle of the day, sometimes after work, there has never been many, there has always been a maximum of three or four cars ever parked in that garage site and therefore there is a very minimal number of displaced parking and that parking can very easily, as shown by the photos, that small number of parking can easily be accommodated on the surrounding roads. Richard, do you want to come back at all? Thank you, chair, just a couple of statements more than anything I think. The path is owned by the council, the land is owned by citizens on either side of the footpath, it is a very strange land ownership, so I get that, the edge of the footpath is actually the boundary of the land, so that is going to stay open and that is fine. I know what your pictures saw and I know what you saw, but I know what I have to encounter residents about lack of parking and there are times when there is space there and you can clearly see that but there are times when there is not and that would be my major concern about displacement parking, not about the concept of building the site, clearly it is a good idea, I just think it is overpowering and I am worried about displacement parking now and in the future, thank you. The statements. I see there was a statement, Roger did ask about the obscured glass and so forth, I think Matthew brought up the roof lights and said it is possible if they were open for people to look into the bedroom, is that true or not? So the elevations on screen will show you the elevations of plot one, which I think is the property that would be nearest to his house. They wouldn't, I don't know how to describe it, but the house would be side on to that resident's garden and so I mean I suppose it is technically possible to overlook, but you would have to open the window, crane your head outside to look around, it wouldn't directly look out. Catherine. Thank you, chair. I think we are all very well aware of what is needed, but bungalows are needed, it is as simple as that, and I am aware of citizen because in lower Stoke we have a lot of garage managers and they are building houses which to me is very large and there is not much we can do about it, but I do think we should be talking to citizen about the size of what they want to put where the garages are. I know Grace explained you went different times, parking, but I have never been around that area when there is not cars parked everywhere along there. So I am concerned about the parking in that area, and it is a loss, you said 16 spaces. So with respect to the local plan, I don't understand why we can't work with citizen to provide suitable houses in places where these garages are going to be. I do believe this is an overbuild in this space. Thank you, chair. I wanted to pick up on the point about bungalows, really. Firstly, we have the application before us which is for you to determine. The application is for two storey houses and that is what we are considering today. The bungalows in my view would not be in keeping with the rest of the character of the area. There are two storey dwellings, apartments on the corner at Dilipford and Healy, and they are two storey apartments. The character is two storey dwellings around there. Just for bungalows, first of all, they would take up a larger footprint so it may struggle in terms of the plot sizes there. But the application is for two family dwellings and that is what we are being asked to consider today, is the proposals for two storey dwellings. I am of the view that single storey dwellings would not be appropriate there in terms of the designing character of the area. So there are two different views there. Jackie. Thank you, chair. My question relates to trees. I have read the documentation and if we can get slide 7 back up, possibly, please. No, it is the one with the trees on it. That one or there is another one a little bit later. That one. Yes. So it says there is a proposed tree and it is in green and I can't see a proposed tree on that plan. Could you tell me where it is, please? Grace, can you locate it or when you located it, can you tell Jackie where it is? If not, we can bring Google up, I'm sure. I don't think there is a new tree to be planted. I think they have used a key, a standard key and green would show any proposed trees. There are no proposed trees shown with green. Thank you. I notice in paragraph 5.3, it says the preliminary ecological assessment by a diversity impact assessment counts like 87% gain due to the creation of and I quote new garden spaces in the planting of new trees, plural. So where are these new trees? It is on page 15. Okay. We think that was under the previous layout. We had some revisions because of the visibility displays. So we had some revised plans to make sure there was the correct visibility at the entrance. So we think there may have been proposed planting under the previous one but we can include a condition that requires details of the landscaping to include additional tree planting and we can have regard for the resident's property there along that boundary if that's what members wish to see. Jackie, do you want to come back at home? Thank you. I have another question. It's relating to flood risk. I think one of the objectives is they worried about flooding. And in page 16, we have a thing telling us about what policy EM4 is but it doesn't tell us whether this proposal meets the standards of policy EM4. It just says if a development is in areas at risk of flooding is the only option following the application of the feedback, it will only be permitted where the criteria set out in policy EM4 are met. But I'm not told whether the criteria policy EM4 are met. So could you tell me whether they're met, please? Thank you. You'll see from the officer's report that there's no objections from the drainage team in respect to flooding, so they're happy with the proposals. Do you want to come back, Jackie? Kevin. A number of points, I think, really, related to the objections. One of them has just been to me. There was an objection about the risk of flooding. We've just heard that. I'm intrigued by the risk of antisocial behavior. It's mentioned. I don't know why there should be a risk of antisocial behavior. And it's important, since it's in the documentation, that somebody justifies that statement. We've had the concern about overlooking, but we're confirming, I hope, that the only windows that can directly look over other properties will be obscure glazed or you've got to stretch out and that's not really very practical. The second point was safety. There was a mention made that with this development, people living in the area would be unsafe. Again, I feel that that needs to be justified or it is removed as a reason for why there are objections. We've also come down in terms of it's not as big because there are no five-bedroom properties. I have to say it would be useful when we've got all these pictures if somebody could impose on the photograph where the height is, because in some ways we've either got to imagine, even if you're a resident or a councilor, you've got to imagine what the 9.8 would be. For those of us who have got poor imagination, we've got no idea and it would be useful to have mocked up something. So that's a strong reason for objecting to this, that it becomes overpowering, but I've got no evidence or idea of why that is. Other reasons for objections were water, air and noise pollution, again, without justification. I always feel you can't throw these things in without some evidence as to why there would be noise pollution or why there would be air pollution. I can understand during construction there is concern, but there is 3.9 construction management plan which I'm assuming would include means of ensuring that there was no air pollution. Two other things, first of all, safety from traffic movements, well, if there were 16 spaces before for a garage and now there are only two houses, I'm at a loss to find out why these are more at risk than when it was operating as a 16-garage spaces. And then the displacement parking, can we have some evidence of what is being displaced and where, because the pictures seem to be indicating that there was very little parking taking place. Now, if that's not accurate and there's a concern that it is still not well used but it is still used for parking, that evidence needs to be there, because that's a reason for asking for more to be done, but as I understand it at the moment, it may have two or three cars from time to time. I don't think that that merits the description of a risk of displacement parking. And the only other thing I'd say, in terms of the layout, if there is a concern, then the access road serving those two houses, there needs to be a means by which that doesn't become clogged with other people who are parking there, so it's no longer accessible for housing. And I think how that's going to be dealt with needs to be there. And again, my main concern is around the fact that evidence or concerns are put in there without evidence to support it. These are two housing units and they are not generating excessive traffic or parking. And if there are other concerns that mean that there is safety concerns, that needs to be clearly spelt out. Okay, I'm going to come to Grace in a second. I mean, clearly, a lot of what Kevin has said, you are absolutely right about, you know, antisocial behavior and so forth, you can't anticipate new residents will suddenly be behaving in an antisocial way and so on. That would be wrong. In terms of the displacement of cars, I think with the late representation, it does suggest, I think I've seen it, that there would be 16 displaced cars. So that is said within the material. But the height, obviously, you know, I mean, I think he's right. I didn't see anything either that could tell us what the height comparisons are. Thank you, Chair. The street scenes here are intended to show the difference in heights between the dwellings with the plot at the back. You can see the increased height there. The plot to the right, shaded out, is the one from the street behind. So that's the existing dwelling. So it does step up slightly from those dwellings, but not significantly, Chair, in our view. The plot at the back is slightly higher than the one to the front. Sorry, I was going to come on to the antisocial behavior issues. Citizen, from our discussions with them, they've had issues with quite a number of their garage courts around the city, with antisocial behavior. And a lot of them, they've indicated, are not actually being used for parking. And where they are, it's underused in the advice that they've given to us. They do have problems there. They've had problems with securing some of the garages across, not just with this site, but in general. They've had problems with securing the garage sites. They've had problems with people using it, gathering there in those areas. And that's where the antisocial behavior in our view is from. As officers haven't identified any antisocial behavior with the proposed housing, this is a concern that residents have raised about noise and disturbance. We don't envisage any additional noise and disturbance to residential dwellings. They're just family dwellings. They're not proposed for commercial use or anything else. So the only noise issues that we are aware of is that during construction, which will be short lived, and we have got a condition for construction management plan to control that. Thank you. Kevin, would you like to come back, particularly on the height? It was the antisocial behavior which was raised by objectors, not the fact that there might be antisocial behavior now. And I'm just asking, if there is this concern, where that concern comes from, I will say this to anybody who brings an objection to a planning application, you can't just throw these things in. It used to be, rats were caused by every form of development under the sun. That's obviously not here. But you can't just throw in that the development will cause antisocial behavior without being able to explain why that is. Otherwise, we as counselors can't challenge that objection. And we have to go on challenging the evidence, not on challenging the fact that somebody's written antisocial behavior as a reason for objecting in their submission. I'll take that as a statement, then, Kevin. I'm looking around members to see -- Oh, yeah, Katherine, yes. Yeah. Just one. Is it being conditioned about the obscure glazing for those windows? And why? If it's not causing any issues, why would you need to insist on having obscure glazing in a window and can that window open? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. The reason why that condition is to ensure that we can enforce against one making sure it's provided for because it addresses a concern which is overlooking. So any windows over the first floor obscure means it reduces that concern around overlooking. The condition goes in there because if they fail to do that, then we can enforce against it as the local planning authority. That's the reason why we use conditions to regulate, you know, the acceptability of planning applications where we think it's relevant. Thank you, Chair. The condition is to prevent any additional windows being put in the side elevations of the properties and first floor level to prevent overlooking. It's not permitted development to insert windows, but we do it as a precaution to make sure that they're not imposed. It's with nonopening above 1.7 meters so any windows beside elevation should not open above 1.7 meters. Hang on. You've got to ask if you're going to come back and speak, but I think what they said is the upper level that they can't open. Thank you, Chair. Councillor, if I refer you to Condition 4, and you can read that in full, and what it says is that the first floor windows will be formed in north facing elevations of the dwelling, permitted shall only be glazed or re-glazed with an obscure glass, and any opening part of any window will be at least 1.7 meters above the floor of any room in which the window is installed. That is the condition that we've got. Thank you, Chair. I think the one you're concerned about is window and side elevation, is that correct? Because the condition we've got is to prevent new windows and any new windows must be obscure glazed. That is shown as being obscure glazed, but it can be opened. So I think if it would give members some comfort, we can include a condition that that window there shall not be opened, so they'll need to have it as the upper level opening and not the lower level to prevent overlooking, so I do understand that position, and the condition we've got only covers new windows and not that window, so I think it would be appropriate to have another condition relating to that particular window. Could I just ask before bringing Catherine back in, when you're talking about a window in a bathroom, for example, not opening, and I can understand if it's a window which is the main window, but, I mean, surely there's a little window at the top, you know, which often in bathrooms can be opened so that you can ventilate and so forth. Has no consideration been made to this? So the 1.7 meters means it's only the upper level that can open, so by imposing a condition on existing, on the new side window there, that would mean that they would have to change the design of that window so it can only open at the upper level. It's shown as obscure glazing, but if you see on the image, it's showing that it can actually open, so we would require that they cannot open it below 1.7 meters. I wasn't aware of what the 1.7 referred to, whether it was from the ground floor up to 1.7, but I think you've now explained it. Catherine, do you want to come back? Yes. No, that's clarity, and I think that should be conditioned, because it's pointless having a window that's obscured if it can open and people can hang out and do whatever they like, so I would like that condition, thank you. That made Kevin smile, I see. I've seen no more hands up to talk, so I'm going to come to the recommendation now. The planning committee is recommended to grant planning permission subject to the conditions that we've heard about and is written in here, so all those in favor of that recommendation, please show your hand. I see seven there. All those against? I see two, and I don't think there should be any abstentions, but I'm going to ask any abstentions. None. So that's passed then with those conditions. Thank you so much for coming both. [ Applause ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] Okay, we then move to -- or we now move to application seven, which relates to 6 Rochester Road. This is an application that was called in by Councillor Kelly, and we have two registered speakers, Councillor Kelly herself, and also Susan Horsfall and David Hooks, and we also have the applicant, Susan Wallbank. So can we accommodate one, two, three, four people? Yes, we can. [ Silence ] Okay, so now we have the speakers in place. We're going to start with Grace again, the planning officer, Grace. Thank you. So we've got a loft conversion with a dormer window to the rear, except the dormer is going to be modified to -- going to be a modified dormer. So we'll start off with the site plan, so this just shows the property itself and there is -- the property has been subject to enforcement investigation due to a dormer being built without realizing that it's in a conservation area. Therefore, the applicants have sought to secure plan of mission for the dormer. So we've just got the site plan and location plan, which shows that the property has 14 meters separation distance to the boundary and the nearest property is at least 24 meters away. And so I'll go on to -- so this is what has been built at the property. This is an L-shaped dormer, however, we as a planning authority do not -- are not minded to approve this dormer. We believe that this dormer is too bulky and in Congress and not in keeping with the conservation area. Therefore, we have worked with the applicant to find a solution and we have come to the conclusion that this proposed drawing is an appropriate dormer to put on this property. So here you can clearly see the difference between what has been built and what we are proposing. So you can see that it's completely reduced -- reduced the dormer significantly, it's brought in -- brought in up from the eaves, they brought it in from the sides. We've got a side elevation comparing what's been built and what's proposed. Again, you can see a lot of the bulk is proposed to be removed and we've got proposed floor plan. Again, we've got on the left we have the as-built dormer and then on the right we have the proposed dormer. So we've got it set in much more from the sides, we've got it set up from the eaves, it's completely removed the L shape and now go back to the proposed dormer. You can see the windows have been changed to make it much smaller. Make the dormer in keeping with our guidelines in terms of our household SPD, it makes it much more appropriate in the conservation area. One of the windows will be up still glazed. It's an appropriate design. We believe it's an appropriate design for this property. Thank you. Thank you for that, Grace. We now then move to Councillor Kelly. Lynette, you have five minutes. Would it be possible for -- of course it would be, yes. Do you want to start with Susan or David looks as if he's taken control of the microphone? So David, you've got three minutes. I produced two photographs which are not shown up on the screen which we did about five days ago. You can pass the -- give them to me then. Pass them around. Photo one, photo two. Okay. They have been circulated to our councils anyway. We are not -- I should say that we are not in any way opposed to making use of roof spaces, of course. However, we believe that should be done with due regard to the interests of neighbours. In fact, when we bought our house at number one, Shaftesbury road, about the end of July 2022, we could see windows in the roof spaces at number four, number eight, Rochester road, see photo one, centre right, photo two. They are integrated into the slope of the roof and do not cause any possible invasion of privacy. At the purchase of our house, the rear roof of number six Rochester road had no valence windows or any other roof structure apart from chimneys, see photo one. On return from holiday on the 8th of June 2023, we discovered that a large roof extension box structure had been constructed in the rear roof space of number six Rochester road to the rear of our house. That is centre left, photo two. This structure is entirely out of keeping with the character of the roofs in the area which is designated as a conservation area. This structure has a deep intrusion upon our line of vision, whether it is in the back bedrooms, the kitchen or the private garden. These parts of our house are also visible through the windows in the box structure and thus represent a considerable invasion of our privacy. We discovered from the council planning officials that there was no planning permission obtained before the structural work in the roof space was commenced and almost completed. They continued with the work initially even though the council officials had told them to stop work. They eventually stopped work after further pressure from council officials. Prior to purchasing our property, there was no indication that such a roof box structure was being planned. This is not surprising since no planning permission had been applied for at the time. We would not have purchased the property if such a structure was present prior to purchase. In summary, the inhabitants of number six Rochester road have shown complete disregard for the interests of their neighbours, especially those in Shaftesbury road. Council planning documents strongly advise that neighbours should be consulted before undertaking extension building work. No such consultation took place. They have also shown disregard for the rules of the council with regard to planning. We would therefore request that you ask for the complete removal of the present roof box structure. Thank you for that. We've got your point, so no problems. We now come to Susan. Yes, so you've got three minutes, Susan. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Susan, resident of Shaftesbury road in Alsden, which is an immediately impacted by the proposed planning application. I have already submitted a more detailed document for circulation to the committee members prior to this meeting to highlight the volume of communication we have had with the council over the last 12 months, but I would just like to reiterate our main objections to the planning application in its current state, most importantly to us is the invasion of the privacy into our living spaces, particularly with it looking directly into the back bedrooms, our daughters' bedrooms, as it is particularly intrusive, and it also makes us feel extremely uncomfortable sitting in our own garden, and impacts us enjoying sitting in the garden. Also, the current planning application doesn't meet the planning legislation or the council's own guidelines documented in the council's household design guide, which I've indicated in the sort of more comprehensive document. It's and we are concerned that if this application is approved, then in its current state, then it could have significant implications for the area and additional applications. It is prominent from the street. It's not in keeping with all the surrounding properties and unsympathetic in terms of scale, proportion, materials and detailing as expected with any development in a conservation area. At no point did anyone engage with us prior to the start of the build, and work continued despite objections from ourselves, other neighbours, and advice from the council to stop. Thank you very much for that. We now then come to Lynette. Lynette, you have five minutes. Thank you, Chair. I won't take all of the five minutes. I just think if we could have the photo on the screen of the development as it exists at the moment, I think you can see that although what is proposed is slightly smaller than what is there now, it is incredibly bulky. The other houses around that have got loft conversions have gone for windows. That I think is in keeping with the neighbourhood. This is completely out of character for the area. It is a conservation area. Yes, this is to the rear of the property, so you can't see it from the main road, but you can see it from other areas. And it is incredibly large. You talked in the other application about having obscure windows where they are overlooking somebody else's garden. This has got obscure windows to the en suite, but not to the bedroom area. It completely looks out onto several neighbours' back gardens. There is considerable amount of overlooking. And although you said the original design was too bulky and incongruous, and that's why you negotiated with the homeowners about reducing the scale, I would argue that it is still too bulky and it is still incongruous, and it is completely out of scale for the neighbourhood and I think it should be refused. I have no objection to somebody having a loft conversion, but I think in this context it should be like the other neighbouring houses and have Velux windows, not this large dorma. Thank you. Thank you very much for that, Lynette. We now then come to Susan. You have five minutes, Susan. Thank you very much. I have also done some photographs of all of the loft extensions that are Roundabout, Shaftesbury, Rochester Road, St Andrews Road, all in the conservation area. We are both retired and have lived at Rochester Road since 2000. Can you lift the mic up slightly, Susan, so that we can -- a bit closer, yeah. In 2022 we decided to carry out a loft conversion due to change in family circumstances. We submitted plans to the building control, August 2022, and they were approved on the 10th 11, 2022. We did not make a planning application, as we hadn't realised the Earlstone conservation area had been introduced. Work started May 2023 and the project proceeded without event until the 7th 2023 when we were told by Planning Department that we could not continue without planning permission. We were about three weeks away from completing the project. We immediately made the dorm at secure and ceased work, and this is the situation today. Our architect has since been in discussion with the planning team over the last few months and their expert advice guided us to the plan that we have now submitted. This involves a substantial change to the currently constructed structure which will have to be demolished in part. The revised plan is considerably reduced in bulk and has appropriately sized and positioned windows with respect to the rest of the house. As you know, a planning report has been prepared by Grace that recommends the plan for approval. The report comprehensively covers the points that we would raise ourselves but, however, we feel a few facts about the streets around us are worthwhile drawing to your attention and we have provided two pictures of the areas to the northeast and the southeast of our property. With respect to the objections raised to the project not being in keeping with the area and not appropriate to a conservation area, firstly, the submitted plan should not be confused with the current structure which is considerably larger. The proposed dorm is, however, very much in keeping with Earlstone as it is now. To put our dorm plan in context, there are over 20 dormers within a 200-meter radius of our property including four in a row on St. Andrews Road that is visible from the rear of the properties behind us. Most look the same as our proposal but some are much more bulky. An example of which is visible in the row of four on St. Andrews Road that includes a patio window. Others are front-facing or side-facing. They include a variety of finishes. We have chosen our finishes to blend in with the grey slate roofs around us to soften the view from Shaftesbury Road. We note that the Conservation Officer would prefer that the dormer be split into two smaller dormers. This is not common in Earlstone, in fact none of the 20-plus dormers referred to the above are built like this as can be seen in the pictures. Lastly, we find it difficult to understand the issues with reduction of privacy as a dormer makes to properties surrounding us. Neighbors to our rear can already see straight into our bedrooms, our living rooms, and our gardens and we, into theirs. In common with many living in the densely populated inner city area like Earlstone, the proposed dormer will only have two windows, one of which will be obscured and these windows are scaled to be much smaller than the bedroom windows. We hope these observations will help you to make your decision. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much for that. We... Okay, we normally have an item for the planner to come back but... Do you want to come back on anything that you've heard, Anni? I'll just... Well, I'll talk about the separation distance. I have measured the separation distance from the elevation of the application site to the nearest property on Shacre Avenue and there is 24 meters of separation distance which is way beyond our guidelines and therefore in our opinion it's not considered that this dormer would result in over looking due to there being 24 meters of separation distance before any overlooking, anyone can look into each other's properties. We have put in a materials condition on the application form. This will make, this will ensure that they submit sample materials of the dormer and we can ensure that they are, that the material chosen blend in with the property that are appropriate in the conservation area and that they don't, that the chosen materials won't stand out among the other properties. And I would also mention that the Executive Director has said there are multiple dormers in the area. It's only recently become a conservation area, so until the last year or two the area has had complete permitted development rights and therefore there has been a lot of changes to the properties around it and the character of the area. And dormers are fairly characteristic of the area now. Thank you. Members, I'm looking to see if there's any hands going up. Anne, you want to? Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to expand on a couple of points that Grace has made. In terms of the dormers, I fully agree with the neighbors that what was constructed was not acceptable. It was particularly prominent, it was bulky and the materials were not in keeping with the window sizes and everything else. It was totally out of keeping in our view with the conservation area. The purpose of removing permitted development rights with the dormers on conservation areas is not to prevent dormers in conservation areas but to make sure that we can have some say in terms of the design and to make sure that they are in keeping. We believe that this the fact that now needs to come to planning for consent has enabled us to do that. We believe that the design we've got now has got the matching materials to the roof, the windows are proportionate and in keeping, and we believe that it accorded our design standards. So we are content that the dormer is acceptable in design terms in the conservation area. You can see it between the properties, but it's not overly prominent now. The one as constructed was considered to be overly prominent. This is set back further. They've taken the L shape off so it's just a rectangular dormer now and it does accord with our design standards. There are a number of dormers on the front of properties on Shaftesbury Road, there's on Rochester Road there's a block of about four which I think you've seen from the photographs. And you can view those through the end of Shaftesbury Road through the gap there. You can see those dormers. So there are dormers in the area so the provision of a dormer is not uncharacteristic, but what was important to us was to make sure that we got the design right, and we believe that we have now. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much for that. So I'm now looking at members to see Grace. Thank you. When was the Earlsdon conservation put into place and have dormers been erected since that has been put into place? We're just checking, it was September, but we're just checking whether it's... It was a few years ago, but two, three years ago I would imagine because I remember being... I think it was September the year before last. It was a different place. We were in the council chamber. The conservation area was introduced in October 2022. And yes, it was constructed after the introduction of conservation area. So at that point it needed planning permission. But I think the question was have other dormers been erected since of this type, presumably? Within Earlsdon and since the conservation area, we have had multiple planning applications for dormers. Oddly, when we get a planning application, we review it just like we have with this one. We would be the design of the dormer to ensure that, like Anne said, we don't object to any object per se to the dormer itself. We just want to ensure that the dormers are of a suitable size and fit within the roof slope. So trying to answer your question, yes, there have been dormers built since the conservation area has come into play. But I suspect you're looking of this type, but for example, whatever road it is, I've seen a dormer, but it looks better than this. Do you want to comment? Yeah. I was just mainly asking, was a dormer of a similar style to this one been erected and been accepted since? Just to add to that, Chair, and for Councillor's information, we have had a mix. We have refused dormers in the conservation area. We refused one off the property at the back of Albany Road, which was the L shape that has been constructed. We refused one of that shape and design, and that was dismissed at appeal. So we are resisting those that are not of appropriate design, but there are dormers that we have approved that are of an appropriate design in the conservation area. Grace, do you want to come back I can't see any more items. I couldn't see you put your hand up. You've got to actually sort of catch my eye. That's the object. Come on in. The question about dormers and loft conversions has been an issue going back years and years and years. And it would be helpful, certainly for me, if you could explain the difference between a loft conversion with the windows and the dormer in terms of permitted development rights, because I think that was the if I had got it right, then permitted development rights for upper floors like this were relaxed or you didn't need planning permission for them. And that has led to a number of difficulties, so if you could just explain what the current planning regulations are. And then I just feel that builders and all of those who are involved in things like this should be better informed. They're the ones that are being paid to do this, and it's unfair on everybody else to assume that the experts, when they go ahead and do something, know what they're talking about. And clearly, in terms of the TARDIS that had been landed on the roof in the first photographs we saw, that just was not appropriate, and really should have questioned that right at the beginning. That's it. Thank you. So you can construct extensions and dormers in a conservation area. Permitted development rights are tighter in a conservation area. But on this particular in Elsdon, we have an Article 4 direction, so we've gone over and above what would normally be permitted development rights in a conservation area. So whilst a conservation area has further protection in terms of its permitted development rights, there's less you can do under PD, we've added additional we've removed further PD rights in the Elsdon conservation area. Would you like to come back? No, I think I just illustrates that builders and others should know about these things because, and should inform their clients before they proceed. I'd agree with that. I'm looking around again. Do I see any other hands? Just on that point, I suppose builders look around and see what's there and they just do whatever they want anyway and, you know, hope for the best. Did I hear obscure windows again? Sorry. I did. Explanation. Will that one open as well? I think the situation's different. Whilst we felt that the obscure window condition was appropriate on the previous application, that window was right next to the boundary so it would directly overlook the garden area. These windows are set 13 meters from the rear boundary and slightly offset from they're not immediately back to back, they are at slight angles. So there will be an element of overlooking the rear garden, but the window distance is fully accord so the distance is sufficient, we don't believe it would warrant obscure blazing for the dormer. Well, Kevin's talking about builders should know and everything else, but the conservation officer still isn't happy with this. So maybe we can put the conservation officer in touch with builders from now on and they can work together. I mean, you know, it doesn't fit well when we have a conservation area and the conservation officer is not happy with the design and that still worries me that, you know, about this. Thank you, chair. Okay. I'll take that one as a statement. I think if the conservation officer had to work with them, they'd probably work out and rightly so, a charge for that as well. Right. I can't see any. Oh, yes, Dave. Just very briefly on that point, could I have a quick outline of what the continued objections from conservation are? I think I understand, but I think it'd be useful for the room. The issue with the conservation officer is that she wants to see the dormers broken into two small dormers. There are areas around the city where we have, particularly where some of the more modern properties, actually, front dormers are characteristic with the slim dormers with the pitched roofs. So quite often, they are more characteristic with some areas. Officers do not feel that two small pitched dormers here would be or breaking up into two dormers would be appropriate and the existing dormers in the area are not of that design. So we don't agree with that view and design is and can be subjective. I'd better have my say as well. I personally don't like the look of it and I don't think it's the sort of thing that would be appropriate to spread within this conservation area and clearly, it worries me that it's very clear that the conservation area doesn't like it either. There are existing dormers in the area and these dormers were introduced before the conservation area came into being. The conservation area was, I think, introduced in order to make sure that developments were in keeping in the area. Those developments previously, I would argue, were not in keeping. So I for one would be very much in favor of the two small dormer suggestion of the conservation area so that's the way I will vote. But clearly, this is a committee where everybody has their own decisions to make and I'm now going to turn to the recommendation and the recommendation of the Planning Committee is recommended to approve planning permission, subject to the conditions. All those in favor please raise their hands. And I see six in favor. All those against raise their hands. I see three in favor and there will be no abstentions. No, so that is carried. Thank you very much everybody for your attendance and what you've said. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Remy has disappeared for an urgent phone call and so I think we probably don't need him because we've got another solicitor in the room here who is our new solicitor and do you want to introduce or you introduce yourself. Hi, everyone. I'm sure you'll familiarize my face but it's a pleasure to meet you all today. And we're very glad to have her on board. And with a relative living in, evidently, Rainer's Lane which she said, You won't know that. But I did. My first job was within about, well, a quarter of a mile of Rainer's Lane so there you are, Pinner, a six form college. Right, so moving on. Moving on then. Application 8, this is 32 Macaulay Road. No speakers to this. It's been brought here because it is under the ownership of an elected member. So Tom is the planning officer to present this application. Thank you, Chair. So as you stated, this application is being considered before committee because the applicant is an elected member. So this application is for the erection of a single storey rear extension to the residential property at number 32 Macaulay Road. The property is a residential dwelling house on a corner plot on the junction of Macaulay Road and McDonald Road. The property has seen previous alterations, including extensions to the front, side and rear of the dwelling house. The plot is also heavily landscaped as can be seen in the picture on the right. These are some of the photos of the site and where the extension is proposed. So under this application, the applicant is seeking the erection of a four-meter single storey rear extension with a flat roof design which will infill the area between the existing rear extension and the boundary with number 34 as can be seen on the other side of the fence in the photos. So here is a site photo, a site plan of where it's going to go and the floor plans. So as you can see, it's just going to go in here. And then we've also got the elevations which show the proposed extension in between the area this is the existing side slash rear extension and this is the proposed rear extension adjacent to it. So in reference to single storey extensions, the local planning authority's household design guide states the depth of the extension should not exceed a projection of four meters along the boundary or impinge an imaginary 45-degree line taken from the centre of the neighbour's closest habitable rear-facing window, whichever gives the greatest depth, subjects ground levels and orientation. Given that the projection is no more than four meters the proposal will accord with the SPD and would therefore not result in an unacceptable level of harm to neighbouring immunity. There are no significant ground level changes and the existing boundary treatment is already of a substantial height as seen in the photos. The principle is therefore considered to be acceptable. In considering the design, the proposal is flat roofed and is considered subservient and respectful to the host dwelling house as well as being responsive to previous alterations to the existing dwelling house. The proposal will not be visible from any public visitors and will be of an acceptable height and scale. The overall design of the dwelling house is therefore considered to be acceptable. Therefore in conclusion, the proposed development as I've stated is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with policies DE1 and H5 of the local plan and the householder design guide SPD is therefore recommended that members grant planning permission subject to the suitable conditions laid out in the report. Thank you. Okay, we'll go straight to members this time, any questions? None, so put it straight to the vote then. Planning Committee recommended to grant planning permission subject to the conditions. All those in favor, please share. Okay, that's unanimous. Thank you very much. So we move to outstanding issues. There are none. Any other business? There's none. to today's meeting. Thank you very much for your attendance.