To determine an application for the erection of a dwelling including access, design landscaping, layout and scale (revised scheme SL/2018/0938).
Erection of a dwelling including access, design landscaping, layout and scale (revised scheme LS/2018/0938) (Dawn Osliff).
Note – Councillor John Holmes said that he had been contacted by the applicant regarding a committee procedural matter. He explained, however, that he was not biased or predetermined and he remained in the Chamber and took part in the discussion and voting on the item.
The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2019/0735 which sought reserved matters approval for a single dwelling on an unallocated site in the village of Levens. He explained that the principle of residential development of the site had been established by the grant of outline planning permission in 2018 and the reserved matters application included access, design landscaping, layout and scale. The Planning Officer displayed plans and photographs which outlined the proposals. He explained that the site was currently part of the garden of Langdales, the neighbouring property to the north and the adjacent dwelling to the south, Applegarth, was a single storey bungalow. The current application was a resubmission of a previous refusal by delegated powers and since the original application the applicant had made an amendment to the plans to relocate the garage. However, there had been no change to the scale and design. The Planning Officer informed Members that the design was of good quality and would relate well to the existing dwelling, Langdales. He drew Members’ attention to the late representations, which had been circulated prior to the meeting, and he highlighted the applicant’s submission of amended floor plans which demonstrated that the development would comply with Policy DM11, relating to accessible and adaptable homes. The Planning Officer explained to Members that the Parish Council had objected on highway safety grounds, however, the Highway Authority had been satisfied that the proposal provided adequate space for parking and turning and did not have any adverse impact on highway safety. He informed Members that the key reasons for refusal were the impact of the scale; layout; and the relationship with the adjacent dwellings, which would result in a significant overbearing impact on the habitable room windows in the rear elevation of Applegarth.
Mr David Parry addressed the Committee in support of the application and enquired if the documents and indicative plans, submitted by the applicant prior to the meeting, had been passed to Members as he wished to refer to these during his address to the Committee. As the documents had not been made available to Members of the Committee, a motion to defer the application was proposed and seconded. In light of the motion to defer the application, Mr David Parry requested permission to proceed with his address to the Committee without the said documents. The proposal to defer the application was therefore withdrawn by Councillor Lancaster who requested that it be noted in the minutes that an offer to defer had been made. Mr David Parry proceeded to address the Committee in support of the application.
Councillor Kevin Holmes, Ward Member for Bowness and Levens, addressed the Committee on behalf of Levens Parish Council in opposition to the application.
Note – The Committee voted to adjourn for a break at 12.19 p.m. and reconvened at 12.25 p.m. when the same Councillors were present, with the exception of Councillor Anne Hutton.
At this point in the proceedings, copies of the documents and indicative plans, submitted by the applicant prior to the meeting, were circulated to Members. The Committee proceeded with the agreement of the meeting to consider these plans.
Ms Dawn Osliff, the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.
The Interim Development Management Team Leader responded to matters raised during public participation and clarified that the grant of outline planning permission did not guarantee that reserved matters permission would be granted. He informed Members that the overbearing impact on Applegarth had been considered and Officers had been unable to support the application for the reasons set out in the report. The Interim Development Management Team Leader referred to planning history of the terrace of four dwellings at Quarry Foot and outlined the differences between the two applications.
The Planning Officer and the Interim Development Management Team Leader responded to questions raised by Members. They confirmed that there had been no objections received from neighbouring properties and outlined the requirements for Policy DM11. In response to a question regarding distances between neighbouring property windows, the Interim Development Management Team Leader informed Members that there were no statutory guidelines, however, there were general standards adopted by numerous authorities used to assess the impact of development proposals. In response to a further question, the Interim Development Management Team Leader confirmed that there was no issue with the concept of a building on the site and that it was the size, massing and impact of the proposal which was not acceptable.
The recommendation contained within the report to refuse the application was moved and seconded.
Members agreed the site visit had been very beneficial and gave consideration to the overbearing and oppressive nature of the proposal on the neighbouring property Applegarth.
At this stage in the proceedings, acknowledging the fact that Applegarth had been orientated with windows facing the common boundary and that an application for a terrace of four dwellings had recently been approved, a Member suggested approval of this application. This was not seconded.
Deferral was suggested by a Member in order that discussion be facilitated with the applicant.
Attention was drawn to the need to take a vote on the motion on the table, which was to refuse the application on the basis of the recommendation set out in the Planning Officer’s report.
The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote and lost.
A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded.
Members gave consideration to the fact that outline planning permission had been granted and agreed that the neighbouring property Applegarth had historically been constructed at an angle, which was beyond the control of the applicant. Consideration was given to whether the proposal would be substantially overbearing to the neighbouring property Applegarth.
The Interim Development Management Team Leader provided guidance and advice to Members that the position and orientation of Applegarth were a matter of fact to be taken into account. Upon discussion, it was proposed that the reason for approval of the application was that the proposed development by reason of its scale, layout and relationship with adjacent dwellings, would not result in a significant overbearing impact on the habitable room windows in the rear elevation of Applegarth, the dwelling to the south.
Members gave consideration to the motion to approve the application.
The motion to approve the application was put to the vote and lost with the Chair’s casting vote.
Members felt that a decision on the application should be deferred at this time in order to provide the applicant and Planning Officers the opportunity to reconsider that application and for the resubmission for a more acceptable proposal.
A motion to defer the application was, therefore, proposed and seconded and it was
RESOLVED – That a decision on Planning Application SL/2019/0735 be deferred to enable discussion between the applicant and Planning Officers with regard to a more acceptable proposal.