Two detached dwellings at 81-83 Brooklands Avenue, Broughton

The site and surroundings

The vacant plot lies within Broughton’s development limits, on Brooklands Avenue, with existing dropped kerbs and nearby homes of varied types.

“It is not within a conservation area and there are no tree preservation orders (TPOs) or listed buildings on or in close proximity of the site. The site is within flood zone 1, which is at low risk of flooding. A bus stop, litter bin, street name sign and post box are located outside the site. Any layout would need to consider these features within the street scene.”

“The principle of residential development on the site and access have been established and technical matters have been approved subject to conditions. The application site comprises a vacant plot which previously contained a pair of semi- detached properties, set back slightly from the main highway, Brooklands Avenue, with a greater separation distance from South View.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

Outline permission for two detached dwellings was granted in 2022, following several earlier residential permissions for the site and nearby land.

“RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 7/1977/0545: Erect a single-storey extension to a dwelling – approved with conditions 26/07/1977 PA/2007/0137: Outline planning permission to erect 8 two-bedroom residential apartments with associated parking and gardens (including the demolition of 81 and 83 Brooklands Avenue) – approved with conditions 25/04/2007 PA/2011/1417: Planning permission to erect two detached bungalows and garages – approved with conditions 08/02/2012 PA/2013/0132:…”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers considered the design, landscaping, residential amenity, access and highway safety acceptable, subject to conditions and the existing outline permission.

“The applicant has sought to address any concerns through the application process and no objections have been received from neighbouring properties in relation to amenity harm. It is therefore considered that the proposal, with the recommended conditions, would not carry any significate overbearing, overlooking or overshadowing impacts that would be detrimental to the residential amenity rights of adjoining neighbours and aligns with policies DS1 and H5.”

“Adequate parking (two off-street spaces) will also be provided within the site to accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed residential dwellings. The LHA has no objections subject to the inclusion of planning conditions, some of which are already set out within the original outline permission and will remain in place. As such, in highway terms, the scheme is considered acceptable.”

Officer report

Objections received

The town council and four other respondents objected mainly because the wider neighbouring site was unfinished, untidy and attracting alleged antisocial activity.

“TOWN COUNCIL Objects, making the following comments: • The site at present is an eyesore with two houses in mid-construction, attracting vandalism and rough sleeping. Until these houses have been completed, the [town] council would not like to see any further development taking place.”

“PUBLICITY A site notice has been displayed and five comments have been received: four objections and one response from the applicant. These are summarised below: • The site is a mess. Development has started on the wider site and [this site] has been left to deteriorate. • Permission should not be granted until the other properties on the adjacent site have been completed. • The site is an eyesore. • Birds and bats are moving into the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A representative of the applicant addressed the committee about the reserved matters application, consultation responses and changes made during discussions with officers.

Committee discussion

Councillor Sherwood agreed that several consultation concerns related to the neighbouring site rather than the application site.

“Councillor C Sherwood agreed with the applicant’s representative that several of the issues referred to during the consultation period affected a neighbouring site and not the one being considered at this meeting.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Sherwood moved, and Councillor Patterson seconded, a motion to grant permission in accordance with the officer recommendation; the motion carried.

“It was then moved by Councillor C Sherwood and seconded by Councillor C Patterson -”

“That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Planning Officers report.”

Minutes