One two-bedroom flat at Earlswood Court, Belvedere, Lessness Heath

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-bedroom, four-person flat above the existing building, with internal changes, a roof terrace and no new parking.

“The application proposes the erection of a two-bedroom, four-person flat above the existing single-storey building. The proposal includes minor internal reconfigurations to Flats 3 and 4 on the ground floor to facilitate access to the new upper floor unit. The scheme is presented as a car-free development, with no additional on-site parking spaces proposed.”

“This revised scheme is a direct response to the previously refused application (ref. 23/00431/FUL) which sought to create two flats and was refused on the grounds of excessive scale and massing, substandard accommodation, harm to neighbouring amenity, inadequate parking assessment, and lack of information on fire safety and biodiversity. This assessment evaluates how the current scheme addresses each of these matters in turn.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the revised scheme made effective use of developed land and was acceptable on design, amenity, housing quality and highways grounds.

“The application proposes a revised first-floor residential unit above an existing building, addressing previous refusal reasons through reduced massing, improved design, and compliance with local character. It meets policy standards for amenity, internal space, and privacy, and raises no highway objections. Subject to conditions, it is considered acceptable in terms of design impact, accommodation quality and compliance with relevant planning policies.”

“The proposal would make effective use of previously developed land and would make a modest contribution to local housing supply. Subject to the recommended conditions, the development is considered acceptable in respect of the principle of development, character and appearance, neighbouring amenity, accommodation quality, highways, waste, biodiversity, sustainability, and fire safety.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The Highway Authority and Environmental Health raised no objection, while four neighbouring addresses objected on amenity, noise, parking, wildlife and other grounds.

“The site has a PTAL of 2, indicating poor public transport access, and the proposal involves a vertical extension to create one self-contained residential unit while retaining four off-street parking spaces. The Highway Authority initially requested overnight parking surveys to be undertaken in line with the Council’s methodology (5.5m bay length) and to include observations of the on-site bays.”

“Scale and form are inconsistent with predominantly single-storey structures within site. ➢ Development would significantly reduce natural light and outlook for neighbours. ➢ Size and massing would appear overbearing and diminish residential amenity. ➢ Increased noise expected during construction and from future occupants. ➢ Existing noise from current tenants and animals is already disruptive. ➢ Development causes stress and anxiety, particularly for vulnerable residents.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

Officers found that the smaller extension, pitched roof, separation distances, privacy measures and shadowing information addressed the earlier design and amenity concerns.

“To reinforce this physical separation, the proposed development incorporates additional design measures to mitigate overlooking and preserve privacy. Windows on sensitive elevations, particularly facing west towards Alfred Road, have been repositioned, and obscured glazing is proposed. The proposed roof terrace, located within the upper storey, has been carefully designed to include privacy screens to prevent lateral views into adjacent garden spaces.”

“Overall, the proposed development achieves a high level of compliance with adopted policy and guidance concerning residential amenity. The separation distances exceed minimum standards, and the design has incorporated sufficient mitigation to safeguard privacy, outlook and daylight.”

Officer report

Other concerns considered

Officers considered concerns about construction noise, existing behaviour, security, property values, green space, infrastructure, parking capacity and repeated applications.

“Noise generated during construction is a temporary and unavoidable consequence of development and is controlled under separate legislation, namely the Control of Pollution Act 1974. A condition requiring a Construction Management Plan is not considered necessary due to the scale of the proposed development.”

“The existing behaviour of tenants or their animals falls outside the scope of material planning considerations unless it can be demonstrated that the proposed development would intensify such impacts in a way that is materially harmful. The planning system cannot control personal behaviour or existing tenant conduct.”

Officer report

Committee discussion

The committee discussed the application and noted the officer report.

“The registered speaker for this item, [name withheld], was not present.”

“The Committee discussed the application and noted the report for this item.”

Minutes

Registered speaker

The registered speaker was not present when the item was considered.

The decision

The committee approved the application in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“Following their discussion, the Committee RESOLVED on a vote of 11/0 to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation as set out in the report before them.”

Minutes

Approval conditions

Approval was subject to conditions covering plans, sustainability, drainage, biodiversity, cycle parking, refuse storage, privacy, materials and water efficiency.

“Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved, further details of secure cycle parking arrangements, including details of cycle racks and/or any other security measures, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.”

“Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved, details of privacy screening to be installed to the private amenity space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include the position, height, design, materials and appearance of the screening.”

Officer report