Issue - meetings

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a 2no.storey plus loft level dwelling with an integrated garage to include 2No roof lights following the demolition of existing bungalow including alterations to the vehicular/pedestrian entrance

Applicant: G Lupton

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 9 to 42.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Peter Mathers, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. Peter thanked the applicant’s architect for submitting revised proposals which were a clear improvement over previous versions, as a result of concerns raised by Members at their October Committee meeting. Peter commented that despite the revised plans, a number of concerns remained. Peter stated that his property was shown as being 8.2m high within the proposed elevations document, whereas the actual height of his property was 7.2m. Peter felt that this had allowed the architect to show number 162 to be the same height as number 164, and number 160 as lower than 162 which was false. Peter stated that number 162 was in fact lower than number 164, and the proposals would allow for number 160 to be higher than number 162, disrupting the downward slope of roof lines in line with the downward slope of the road. Peter was of the opinion that the architect had reduced the proposals from 6 bedrooms, to five bedrooms, and now to four bedrooms in an attempt to gain approval for the largest house possible, which Peter felt was an abuse of process and should warrant refusal. Peter stated that the Reading Road was a wide road and your eye was naturally drawn to one side of the road. On the even numbered side of the road, the average height of these houses was 7.36m, and the proposed dwelling would be over a meter higher than the average property height on this side of the road. Peter queried why the proposed property needed to be considerably higher than surrounding properties, given that the proposal was for a two-storey dwelling. If approved, Peter asked that the property be restricted a maximum height of 8.4m. Peter stated that the property was at risk of surface water flooding, and the applicant’s property had flooded 14 years prior. Peter asked that the Committee refuse the application, and encouraged the applicant to come back with a more reasonable proposal.

Peter Lindley-Hughes, architect, spoke in support of the application. Peter stated that the designs had been amended to take in to account the concerns of neighbouring properties, concerns raised at the previous Committee meeting, and to “de-risk” the scheme. Peter stated that the third floor internal level had been addressed, as had the issues relating to the windows, height and massing, whilst the garage had also been omitted in the front garden, and the dormer windows from the third floor were no longer proposed. Peter stated that he was disappointed that neighbouring objections remained despite positive email conversations. Peter added  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58