Issue - meetings

The next application for consideration was number 141550 for the removal of existing dwelling and erection of 1no. dwelling house with associated access alterations, vehicle parking and landscaping at Rosemary Villa, 30 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke. Members heard from the Officer that since the report was drafted, further objections had been received from residents of Green Garth, 24 Wragby Road; and Homelea 28 Wragby Road summarised as follows:

• Not against a replacement dwelling but do not agree with multi occupancy.

• Potentially another 10 cars and people do not fit with current infrastructure of Sudbrooke and the busy road

• Impact on residential amenity- the size and proximity of the proposal to the neighbouring property will overshadow, reduce light and impact views from the rear of the property. The rear projection of the proposal would break the 45 degree rule in relation to number 28.

• Increased pollution and noise for the garden of 28, including noise from smokers outside the proposal

• Size of replacement dwelling is out of context and does not compliment neighbouring dwellings

• Loop hole means the house could be changed to a HMO. Objector requests an Article 4 direction is applied to this application to prevent this happening.

• The second floor plan is primed for conversion to additional en-suite bedrooms suggesting this is the intention.

• The noise survey is for an HMO indicating this is the objective

• Previous conclusions of the planning inspectorate on the last application still apply. The application must be refused for the same reasons.

These representations did not change the recommendation.

The Chairman invited the registered speakers to address the Committee. Councillor Peter Heath, of Sudbrooke Parish Council, made the following statement.

“Sudbrooke Parish Council took this application at face value and recorded no objection. However, we have revised our opinion in the light of residents’ concerns and now wish to object for the following reasons.

Planning application 141550 is a straightforward resubmission of application 140180, refused by this Planning Committee in January.  Comparing the plans for this application to the last scheme, the design of the building and internal layout is identical. Only minor amendments have been made to re-label room descriptions. 

For example, the second-floor roof plan for this application retains the exact same layout, simply re-labelled. It has not been redesigned from the original scheme or its dominance on the area reduced in any way. Bedrooms in the original layout now appear as a ‘study, fitness room, playroom, games room and cinema room’ instead.  However, each of these rooms retains an individual bathroom.

The result of this is that we now have a proposal for a five bedroom “house” with nine bathrooms across 3 floors.  Three of these bathrooms are in the roof space alone!  This is clearly not a usual family home. Family homes in villages should also seek to maximise outdoor space. This proposal would turn over half of the existing rear garden into a large driveway and double  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56