Agenda item

In respect of application numbered S/19/0742/SASM - Erection of 1no. dwelling and associated works, Land Adjoining, 22 Dunley Close, Swindon   the Committee considered: -

          Name                                 Address/Organisation

          Chris Westlake                   Local Resident                

Councillors Alan Bishop, Nick Burns-Howell, Stan Pajak, Vera Tomlinson and Peter Watts spoke in respect of this application.

Submissions in support of the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The application had been resubmitted following a refusal made under delegated authority on the grounds that the proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and position of windows would result in an intensive, and dominant development form, causing harm to the amenity of the neighbouring property (No. 32 Dunley Close) in terms of its visual dominance, inadequate separation distance and loss of privacy contrary to Policy DE1 of the adopted Swindon Borough Local Plan 2026, the adopted Swindon Residential Design Guide (2016) and the NPPF (2019).

·       The application was for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling in land to the side of 22 Dunley Close set down from the ridge height of the three storey  dwelling at no.22 (the applicant’s dwelling) by some 0.8 metre.

·       The boundary of the existing house will be subdivided by means of a 1.8-metre close boarded fence as outlined on the Site Plan (S/19/1291/02 rev A). Two separate rear gardens will be provided along with two parking spaces per dwelling (one within the existing garage of no.22). Adequate manoeuvring space is provided.

·       Dunley Close comprises of a mixture of house styles built at a relatively high density. The proposal site forms part of the curtilage of 22 Dunley Close, a semi-detached house. The site is accessed from Dunley Close to the rear by an existing vehicle access and bordered by a wall. The front of the property faces a path and landscaped area.

·       The application reflected the character of the frontage of nearby dwellings.

·       The distance between dwellings met the necessary 12 metre standard and there was no loss of amenity to adjacent properties.

·       Car parking provision meets the necessary standards providing two car parking spaces.

Submissions opposing the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The plot size was too small for proposed development with a lack of garden space.

·       Existing parking issues at Dunley Close will be exacerbated by the development of additional housing.

·       The distance between properties was actually 11.8 metres and therefore was unsuitable for development.

·       There would be a loss of sunlight from 2:00pm in the afternoon.

·       There were already a number of local vehicles parking on the street and further development would heighten this problem and safety issues associated with this, including access for emergency vehicles.

·       The applicant already had six vehicles parking in the vicinity.

·       The prosed development would cause overshadowing and loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

·       The application did not accurately reflect he proposed development and inaccuracies included loss of trees and hedges, not showing a watercourse to the north of the property and incorrect measurements.

·       The development as proposed would require accessing a neighbouring property during development.

·       All local residents opposed the application and the land in question was unsuitable due to its size and location.

·       The Parish Council unanimously opposed the application.

Resolved – That application S/19/0742/SASM be deferred in order to allow officers to liaise with the applicant in respect of the accuracy of information contained within the application.

Councillor Vera Tomlinson made a personal and non-prejudicial declaration of interest in respect of this application and took no part in the voting thereon.  Councillor Tomlinson noted that as she had considered the application in her capacity as a Parish Councillor serving on the Parish Council Planning Sub-Committee and that she was representing the views of the Parish Council at this meeting.