Agenda item

20210634 - 28 Tennyson Walk, Northfleet DA11 8LR

Erection of a single storey rear extension and erection of a new two storey house attached to the side of the existing dwelling.


The Chair gave permission for Cllr Jordan Meade to speak on behalf of the Ward Councillor, Cllr Emma Elliot who was unable to attend. 


TheCommittee consideredthe application20210634 inrelation to28 Tennyson Walk, Northfleet, DA11 8LR. The application was for the erection of a single storey rear extension and erection of a new two storey house attached to the side of the existing dwelling.  


TheTeam Leader(Development Management)introduced theapplication tothe Committee and highlighted key points from the report.


The Committee were informed that the recommendation from Planning Officers was for Members to refuse the application as it would be a cramped form of development, it was out of character with the surrounding area; insufficient amenity space remaining for the existing dwelling at 28 Tennyson Walk; and a lack of ecological mitigation.


The Chair thanked the officers for a detailed report.


The Committee heard the views of a public speaker in favour of the application.Following theaddress bythe publicspeaker, Membershad theirquestions answered:


  • The agent responded to the Committee and informed them that pre-planning had not taken place and no engagement with local residents regarding the plans had been undertaken.
  • It was noted that the garden would not meet the minimum requirements for a four-bedroom property as the useable garden measured approximately 92sqm and the recommendation was for 100sqm
  • The applicant disagreed with the measurements given by the Planning Team as their measurements did not include the side garden whereas the agents measurement took the side garden into account. It should also be noted that it was more like a three-bedroom house as the fourth room was very small; when considered as a three bedroom property the garden would easily meet the requirements of 60 square metres


The Committee heard from Cllr Jordan Meade on behalf of Cllr Emma Elliott, a Ward Councillor with the leave of the Chair. 


This was the 3rd attempt to develop this piece of land and if passed it would be a cramped void with insufficient amenity space.  There were strong oppositions to this development including being out of character for the local area and would cause a blind corner.  Speaking to local residents, many would be happy for a single storey dwelling to be erected but not a two-storey dwelling. 


Policy CS12 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy stated that there would be no net loss of biodiversity and that opportunities to enhance and maintain habitats be sought.  This development would see the loss of a well vegetated area and no landscaping had been submitted.  Cllr Meade requested that that the Committee look at including conditions regarding those points. 


The current application regarding Policy CS19 to safeguard privacy, the first-floor bedroom was significantly less than the 26 meters minimum privacy distance. The windows had now been designed with obscure glass but Cllr Meade raised concern as to whether or not the windows could be opened. 


TheTeam Leader(Development Management)fielded questionsfrom Membersand explainedthat:


  • Paragraph 6.44 of the report explained the bio-diversity issue and the service was satisfied that if the Committee were minded to agree to the application, then suitable planning conditions could be added to ensure there was no net loss of bio-diversity. Due to that, the loss of biodiversity did not form the reason for refusal. Adding conditions for biodiversity as part of soft landscaping is normal procedure if it was determined that it could be achieved and not excessive overdevelopment
  • If the Committee were minded to permit the application then officers could remove certain permitted development rights for new dwellings. The Team Leader (Development Management) explained certain rights such as Class A could be removed from Permitted Development. Subdividing bedrooms doesn’t come under the planning remit and therefore would not be controllable within the powers of Planning
  • Officers could restrict permitted development such as dormers in the roof space along with a range of other permitted development rights that could be discussed, but it would be considered unreasonable to remove them all. Planning Officers consulted with GBC’s Highways Engineer and he was satisfied that visibility would not be impacted from the proposed dwelling, he advised there were no road safety issues for parking as well. The current arrangement for rear parking would be enlarged so that a tandem parking arrangement would be in conjunction with the existing garage
  • In response to a question concerning other developments happening in the surrounding area, the Team Leader (Development Management) explained that they were most likely extensions whereas this was simply an extension; it was a new dwelling and considered differently as new dwellings require additional considerations compared to extensions such as adequate garden size and parking. An extension on the proposed site would be more acceptable than a new dwelling
  • The garden area where the proposed new dwelling would be sited is considered an important green space which was considered to be important in keeping the open character of the area   


The Chair thanked the registered speaker, Cllr Meade and the officers for the detailed report.


The Vice Chair recommended refusal of the application with the reasons given and Cllr Mochrie-Cox seconded this.  


Resolved that the application be REFUSED Planning Permission (unanimous)


Note:  (a) Mr Peter Swain (Agent – in favour) addressed the Committee.

           (b) Cllr Jordan Meade spoke with the leave of the Chair. 


Supporting documents: