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 Nick Burns-Howell, Nick Martin, Stan Pajak, Vera Tomlinson and Councillor Peter Watts spoke in respect of this application.

The application can be broadly summarised as:

·        The application was considered at Committee in November 2019 and was deferred to allow officers to liaise with the applicant in respect of the accuracy of information contained within the application, and in particular the distance between the proposed and an adjoining dwelling.

·        The application was similar to one refused under delegated powers in May 2019 prior to it being modified and resubmitted.

·        Officers visited the site and took measurements and the particular measurement of concern was verified as being correct.

·        During the site visit, officers found a slight discrepancy in the plans submitted by the applicant.  The applicant subsequently submitted a revised plan to address the discrepancy along the boundary of the proposed parking area.

·        The two storey will be set down from the ridge of the three storey building at No.22 (the applicant’s dwelling) and it was set back 0.5 meters from the adjacent property.

·        Officers considered that the plans were not out of keeping with other properties in the vicinity. 

·        Two off street parking spaces and secure cycle storage, both required to satisfy the Council's Parking Standards at a rate of two per dwelling could be accommodated within the site.

·        The application was in accordance with Policy TR2, the Swindon Local Plan 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

·        Paragraph 2.20 of the Residential Alterations and Extensions SPD and 6.12 of the Swindon Residential Design Guide (2016) both outline a separation distance of a minimum of 12 metres from the rear to side of a dwelling. Due to the angled side boundary the proposed distance is between 12.33 and 13.45 metres from the main two storey façade of no. 32 Dunley Close which is considered satisfactory.

·        The closer proximity of the built form to No. 32 will have some limited effect to the rear garden of no. 32 from the westerly direction although this garden did receive sunlight from the south for the greater part of the day.

Representations opposing the application can be broadly summarised as:

·        With the exception of the applicant, all the remaining residents of Dunley Close opposed the application as being unsuitable for the site.

·        The application before Members was not materially different to a previous application that was refused under officer’s delegated authority.

·        The proposed 1.8 meter fence would restrict access to the property from the allocated car parking spaces.

·        The original estate developers, Crest Nicholson, had not developed this plot of land due to its unsuitability for a dwelling and that surrounding properties would lose sunlight.

·        Neighbours, Ward Councillors and the Parish Council all agreed that the applicant submitted was poor and unsuitable.

·        Infill developments are required to be in harmony with their surroundings and not harm the living conditions of neighbours. Infill proposals should also appear to look generally in character with the existing built environment and appear to naturally belong to the surrounding area and seek to make a positive contribution in terms of design and materials.  This was not the case with the application before the Committee, which harmed the living conditions of neighbours and was not align to existing properties.

·        The application if approved would lead to overdevelopment of the site.

·        The applicant ignored officers’ advice to join any new dwelling to their existing property.

·        The proposed property due to its location and size would cause loss of sunlight to adjoining properties, including No. 22 and well as overlooking it, including a hot tub causing loss of privacy to Nos. 22, 28 and 30.

·        The area already suffered from an overabundance of on-street parking, including by the applicant whose family had six vehicles which were parked on the road. This created dangerous conditions at junctions and bends in the road and could cause problems for emergency services vehicles.  A three bedroom house would further compound this issue s would construction traffic.

·        The property which would be three storeys would be out of character with the rest of the close which were three storey.

·        The application did not accurately reflect the proposed development and inaccuracies included loss of trees and hedges and did not show a watercourse to the north of the property.

Resolved – That application No. S/19/0742/SASM be refused.

Reason: The proposal represents a cramped form of development that fails to harmonise with its surroundings and results in a development that has a dominant and harmful impact on the amenity enjoyed by the occupants of neighbouring dwellings and by virtue of the uncharacteristically small plot size, an adverse impact upon the amenity of the occupants of the existing and proposed dwellings,  contrary to  Policy DE1 of the adopted Swindon Borough Local Plan 2026 (2015) , the adopted Swindon Residential Design Guide (2016) and the NPPF (2019).