Agenda item

Application for new roof above existing single storey garage / shop storeroom. Proposed extension of height of boundary (west) wall.

Late items received following preparation of main agenda:

Consultations:-

The following objection has been received following the publication of the Committee agenda making the following points:

-    We have had very little time to respond to the proposed amendments.

-    The Officer had complete their committee report and recommendation prior end of the re-consultation period. This raises concern that further comments will not be considered.

-    The tenant of 44 in the commercial unit was not consulted and not made aware of the plans submitted. She is against any such development. She rents the actual unit and the garage area is not under the tenancy agreement.

Application Description

-    The application put in said this was for a new roof but this will also be an enlargement to the existing external garage with walls , it seems to be taken out which currently divide it from the storage space.

-    It is an application which, as identified by the case officer in his report, clause 3.1 and 10.1 ,  involves the extension of a separate garage and change  of use to residential  for the use of the first floor flat- which has not been applied for in the appropriate manner.

-    The case officer  states in 3.1  "The first floor compromises a flat to which this will provide additional living accommodation". We had not been told in the application this was the intention but was what we suspected and we cannot see how this will work and are concerned it will lead to more noise for the houses in Mansion Street. This part of the description was copied into the committee report in error by the case officer. Case Officer Comment: There is living accommodation located above the shop unit below. The application details were taken on face value and it appears that an intervening courtyard (shared with the flat and shop unit) allows use and access to the detached garage/storage unit. Therefore, notwithstanding an application for Lawful (existing) development, the case officer can only deduce the building (garage/storage) has been and can be used  ancillary for the associated mixed use (residential and retail). However a separate living accommodation or annexe living accommodation permission would be subject to a separate planning application to the LPA.

-    Other objections sent to the LPA previously have pointed out that the shop does not use the garage or storage space- this area is not in the rental agreement and the shop does not need it. It is then confusing and contradictory in that 8.13 of the case officer's document then suggests it will be increased storage capacity for the shop. This also contradicts the far more likely idea to use it for residential reasons (3.1).

-    As regards the case officer's report, recommending approval and done before we have even commented - can we please refer you to clause 3.1 which confirms what we were again worried about- that this garage is going to be turned into living space. No change of usage has been applied for.

-    This is also a clear reason for this not to go ahead as no change of use has been applied for.

Site Planning History

-    After previous attempts to create a new separate house or commercial unit incorporating the garage (19/00044/PP and 19/00045/PP which went to appeal and were dismissed) it was clear this current application was but another attempt. Concerns have been noted in objections.

-    This is the 3rd attempt to do this and follows some 8 applications including 2 lost on appeal and a building control failure in 2020 . There is a clear concern also that the applicant will try to link this with a previous approved planning approval.

-    The resident of the adjoining dwelling (No 42 Mansion St)and her neighbours have a strong concern that there may be an attempt to link this new proposed residential development of the garage to the previous application (19/01235/FUL) which was approved despite objections but not yet built.

Design and Street Scene

-    Not in agreement with the findings that it will not affect the surrounding historic area, street scene, 42, 40 Mansion Street and their amenities and the other houses in Mansion Street and neighbouring the property in question. She is strongly of the opinion it contravenes a wide range of policies.

-    From the Trinity Lane side, the higher new wall with additional doors (which are not needed) and a widened garage door will look incongruous and out of keeping with the area. The impact on both Mansion Street and Trinity Lane will not complement or enhance the surrounding area but worsen it and the layout and density are not appropriate. This application is thus against policies DM10, section 72 of the Planning Act 1990, section 12 of NPPF, DM11 of the SADMP

Residential Amenity

-    Any increase in height will impact on 42 Mansion Street and also 40 and all other houses in Mansion Street. 44 is at the top of the terraced row and the garage is in a strategic location at the top of their courtyards. Any increase will take out light and be overbearing on all the properties and particularly 42 which also shares a party wall with 44.  These houses are in a conservation area, an historic environment which should be protected.

Traffic and Highway Safety

-    There is a strong concern that with the widening of the garage door, there could be larger vehicles using this garage (albeit the main usage is planned for residential use by the applicant) . The location near the junction and traffic lights and crossing a pedestrian pathway would be hazardous and inappropriate for larger vehicles.

Party Wall and Land Ownership and Building Regulations

-    No.42 has a party wall which will be affected- and it will be a fire risk and totally unsuitable as living accommodation. And the windows will have to be put in and they are not even shown in the plans. And drainage and heating and water.

-    It lacks information as to windows, water, drainage, electricity, heating, fire safety etc.

Application for new roof above existing single storey garage / shop storeroom. Proposed extension of height of boundary (west) wall.

The agent spoke on this application.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the proposal would have an overbearing impact and would be detrimental to residential amenity and therefore contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD. It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Mullaney and

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the abovementioned reasons.