Agenda item

Officers Report

The PO introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval. She confirmed the site’s location, relationship within the local context, existing and proposed elevations and floor plans, and provided images of the site.

With respect to key concerns, the PO advised several representations had been received which raised concerns regarding amenity issues, the main concern being that the development would have an overbearing on No.4. Whilst the proposal would increase the property from a one and a half storey dwelling to a two and a half storey dwelling, the property was set away from the boundary to the east, with the increase in height also stepped from the property at No.4. Given the orientation of the properties, the stepped height increase with the single storey garage closest to the boundary, and the existing boundary treatments of mature trees and hedging, there was not considered to be a significant adverse impact in terms of overbearing or overshadowing. The PO advised that a condition requiring the retention and replacement of the trees and hedging along the boundary would also be included, subject to approval, to soften the visual impacts of the proposal from the highway. Further, the bathroom windows on the first and second floor would be conditioned to be obscure glazing.

Concerns were also raised from neighbours regarding the proposed roof dormers resulting in a loss of privacy, however the PO confirmed that the application conformed with the North Norfolk Design Guide. Furthermore, concerns were raised regarding potential noise pollution as a result of the proposal and potential for the dwelling to be a holiday let. Whilst the development would increase the number of bedrooms, officers did not consider this would have a significant adverse impact in terms of noise pollution. The proposal was for a residential dwelling and no change of use had been submitted, the applicant had further stated that the property would continue to be used as a residential dwelling.

The PO stated that whilst the proposal would result in No.2 being one of the larger properties in Beckmeadow Way, the dwelling was not considered to be out of character for the area given the other large, detached properties in the street. There was not considered to be any significant negative impacts in terms of overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing, subject to conditions relating to obscured glazing and maintaining the well treed boundary. In all other respects, subject to conditions, the development was considered to accord with the relevant policies of the adopted Development Plan.

Public Speakers

Simon Quilter – Objecting

Christian Keen -Supporting

Members Questions and Debate

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr W Fredericks – stated that planning should be about community and about housing need, she reflected on the demographic composition of Mundesley and stressed the need for bungalows to facilitate the requirements of the aging population. She commented that the design of the property was not in keeping with the street scene and would have an overbearing affected with the roofline being too high, despite efforts to lower the roof height from earlier designs. She was further concerned about the potential loss of trees to make way for additional parking, and the overall impact the development would have on neighbouring properties. The Local Member reiterated the vital importance of bungalows in the housing stock at a time of a chronic housing crisis.

     ii.        Cllr L Paterson proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation, provided the retention of the trees would be conditioned.

    iii.        Cllr L Vickers seconded the recommendation. She contended that whilst there was a theoretical need for bungalows in the housing stock, this needed to be balanced against the real life needs of the resident.

   iv.        Cllr P Fisher welcomed the list of proposed conditions provided.

     v.        Cllr V Holliday noted that the proposed alterations and considered that the roof height an No.2 would be higher than the roofline at No.6, instead it would reach the top of the chimney.

   vi.        The PO advised, because of the elevations, No.2 would sit higher than No.6 but it was the same height.

RESOLVED by 11 votes for and 1 against.

That planning application PF/23/0843 be APPROVED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.