Agenda item

Application P18L0453 - 30 Norton Road

The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set down in the plans list.





The Committee considered an application for the proposed erection of a 2 bed detached dormer bungalow at 30 Norton Road.


Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee


The application was reported to planning committee on the 24th January 2018 at which it was deferred, minded to refuse, on grounds that the proposed dwelling would cause harm to the residential amenity of the neighbouring residents by virtue of an overbearing impact on neighbouring residents amenities and would be an over-development of the site in comparison with the previously approved scheme (P17L0363), contrary to the aims and interests of policy SWDP 21 and paragraph 127 of the NPPF (2018).

The original report was attached as appendix 1.

Site Visit


The application had not been the subject of a site visit.


Report/Background/Late Papers


The report set out the comments of the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning with regard to the concerns expressed by Members related to the siting and scale of the proposed development in relation to the neighbouring properties, scale of the development, consequences of the changes in the design of the schemes and the overbearing impact.


Officer Presentation


The Development Management Services Team Leader drew the Committee’s attention to paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 of the report which identified the change to the eaves height.


The Development Management Services Team Leader continued to recommend the application for approval but if Members resolved that they were minded to refuse the application then a suggested reason for refusal was given at paragraph 3.21 of the Officers report, although it remained his opinion that the reason was not sufficiently robust.


Public Representations


There had been no one registered to speak on the application.


Key Points of Debate


  • The local Ward Member, Councillor Knight, in addressing the Committee stated that the neighbours concerns were of mass and scale and whilst the ridge had been lowered the eaves height was causing concern.


  • Members agreed that a good debate had taken place at the last meeting and that nothing had changed, although the eaves height was now referred to in this report.  It was asked whether this would be to add an extra room.  The Development Management Services Team Leader stated that the roof space would continue to provide bedroom accommodation but the proposals sought to provide greater head room in comparison with the approved scheme.


  • Some Members agreed that the increase in the eaves height would result in an increase in the mass of brickwork and understood why but it did not make it acceptable.


  • Other Members felt that there was no planning reason to refuse the application and agreed with the Officer’s opinion that it would not stand up in an appeal.  Although there was no objection principle to development on the site, as there was an existing scheme, the objection was one of the increased mass of the development.


  • The Development Management Services Team Leader proposed an amendment to his suggested reason for refusal at paragraph 3.21 of the report to include the increase in the mass of brickwork arising from the eaves height if Members were to refuse contrary to Officer’s recommendation.


On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the application was refused.  The grounds for refusal were as outlined by the Development Management Services Team Leader, as amended.


Contrary to Officer’s recommendation it was:


RESOLVED: That the Committee refuse planning permission for the following reason:


In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed dwelling would introduce a dwelling within a site which, by virtue of the limited space and arrangement and the increase in the mass of brickwork to the rear elevation arising from the increase in the height of the eaves and proximity of the dwelling to the rear boundary of the site and garden of the neighbouring property, would generate harm to the adjoining residents by virtue of being overbearing in scale and size. The occupation of the site and ensuing facilities required are contrived to the point of being occupied intensely and in a way that is contrary to the surrounding development.


In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, this would be contrary to the aims and interests of policy SWDP 21 and paragraphs 127, 128 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework

2018, which seek to promote inclusive design, social interaction, and the provision and use of shared spaces.

Supporting documents: