Application Number: 16/P1139                            Ward: Dundonald

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to completion of a S106 agreement and conditions.

Proposal: Demolition of a two semi-detached dwellings and erection of a three storey building (with basement) comprising 4 x 2 bedroom flats and 3 x 1 bedroom flats and 1 x studio flat together with associated landscaping.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in supplementary agenda

The Objector raised residents’ concerns including:

·         The Victorian houses on the site should not be demolished

·         The proposed scheme is overdevelopment

·         It does not respect the character of the road

·         The new development will have an adverse affect on neighbours

·         There are no family units in the proposed development

·         The basements are inappropriately large

·         There are vibration issues with the road outside

·         The developer has made amendments during the planning process,

The Agent made points including:

·         We have made reductions to the scale and massing

·         Objectors have misinterpreted the application and its amendments

·         Hartfield Road includes a variety of styles of housing.

·         This design is modern but sympathetic to the Victorian style, did not want to design a poor quality copy of a Victorian building

·         Other houses have been extended to be larger that the proposed development

·         The basement flats are large enough to be classed as family units

The Ward Councillor made points including:

·         The proposed design is inconsistent with this central section of Hartfield Road

·         It is overdevelopment

·         The development would lead to the loss of family homes

·         The development would lead to the loss of parking for residents

·         Concern with process and amendments made

The Development Control Manager reminded Members that the Victorian houses on the site have no protection as they are not listed or in a Conservation Area. In reply to Member questions about applying policy DMD4 to declare the buildings as a heritage asset, he cautioned that this would still not give them adequate protection to justify a refusal.

In reply to Member questions, the DC manager commented:

·         That in relation to potential loss of daylight the applicant had replicated the wing of neighbouring properties.

·         The Structural Engineers have approved the basement

·         Late objections were received (detailed in the supplementary agenda)

·         The drawings shown at the meeting are the most up-to-date versions

·         Engineers have done work to resolve the vibration issues on the road

·         Two bedroomed basement flats are not ideal as family units but they are generously sized and do have access to gardens

·         The dormer design is acceptable

Members of the Committee commented that this part of Hartfield Road does have a distinctive character and uniformity and that any redevelopment should respect this character, they felt that this development did not respect this character. A Motion to refuse on the grounds that the development does not meet the requirements of policy DMD2 and does not respect the character of the surrounding properties

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1.               REFUSE the application for the following reason:

The design of the application is out-of-character with the surrounding properties, and does not respect the scale and materials of the surrounding properties. The application does not meet the requirements of policy DMD2

2.               DELEGATE to the Director of Environment & Regeneration the authority to make any appropriate amendments in the context of the above to the wording of the grounds of refusal including references to appropriate policies