Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for a proposed detached annexe building with habitable space on the ground floor and swimming pool in the basement level (DEV-008-2014/15).

The Committee considered an application for a proposed detached annexe building with habitable space on the ground floor and swimming pool in the basement level at 12 Ravensmere in Epping.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that this application had been considered by Area Plans Sub-Committee East on 15 October 2014, but had been referred to this Committee without recommendation. The Sub-Committee had agreed three additional conditions to be attached to the application, but the Officer recommendation to grant permission had been lost.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that the application site was a detached property located in a cul-de-sac close to Epping town centre. The level of the rear garden was above the ground floor level of the house and was reached by a small set of steps from a small patio area. The application was for the construction of a two-storey outbuilding along the boundary with 11 Ravensmere, with one storey located below ground and containing a swimming pool. The upper storey would contain a guest bedroom, bathroom and gymnasium. The building would be 15.2m long, 4.75m wide and rise 3.5m above ground level at the highest point of the slanting roof. It was intended to excavate the rear garden down to the same level as the rear doors of the house.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that, after the main issues had been considered, Officers had concluded the proposed development was considered to have an acceptable level of impact upon neighbouring properties and would not result in an excessive loss of amenity.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that the main issues to consider were the impacts of the proposed extension on neighbour amenity, the design and appearance of the proposed extension, the preserved tree adjoining the site, and issues regarding land drainage and the basement construction.

The Committee noted the summary of representations, and that the Town Council had objected to the application on the grounds of the detrimental impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring property and had also commented that the absence of any plan to deal with subterranean drainage was also a concern. The Epping Society and three neighbouring properties had also objected to the application; there were no letters of support for the application.

The Committee heard from an objector, who intimated that the applicant had submitted two further applications for the site, before proceeding to debate the application.

The Principal Planning Officer accepted concerns had been raised about the levels shown on the submitted plans, and it was acknowledged that the submitted ground level plan was inaccurate. However, this did not prevent an informed decision being made by the Committee on the application, as the finished level for the garden would be the same as the patio area and therefore the proposed height of the building could be determined. There were nine conditions attached to the application for approval, with the last condition requesting the current and proposed ground levels to be provided in writing before the development could begin.

In response to further questions from the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer contended that if the application for the proposed building had been attached to the current house then the impact of the bulk of the building would be higher and Officers would have been less likely to recommend approval; the application before the Committee placed the building in a less sensitive area for the neighbour. It was acknowledged that precise plans of the levels had not been provided, only indicative drawings. However, Officers were satisfied that enough information had been provided to estimate the impact of the proposed building and make a decision regarding planning approval. The Council would require more information to ensure control, and possible enforcement, of the development. The Principal Planning Officer had no details available concerning the two further applications alluded to by the objector by the applicant for the site.

The Committee felt that the proposed ground levels were pertinent to making a decision on the application and there were concerns about making a decision without the full plans available, although it was accepted that the height of the building would be 3 metres regardless of the ground levels. Concerns were expressed about the possible drainage issues with the basement that had been highlighted. The Committee enquired whether the development would be allowed under a General Permitted Development Order.

The Principal Planning Officer responded that the proposed application was of a scale that could not be allowed under Permitted Development Rights: it was near to the boundary of the neighbouring property; had more than one level; and was greater than 2.5 metres in height. It was also highlighted that the method of construction was dealt with by Building Regulations; condition 6 simply dealt with those issues that would impact upon neighbours, such as permitted times of construction. Condition 7 concerned those issues regarding drainage, which had been highlighted by some of the representations, and required the submission of a full hydrological survey before development began.

The Committee still had misgivings about approving the application without the full information being available. It was decided to defer the application pending the receipt of the detail of the levels showing the cross-sections and elevations, as well as the proposed levels of all ground floor slabs within buildings, roadways, access ways and landscaped areas.

Resolved:

(1)        That planning application EPF/1723/14 at 12 Ravensmere in Epping be deferred pending the receipt of full information regarding details of levels showing cross-sections and elevations of the levels of the site and the proposed levels of all ground floor slabs in buildings, roadways and access ways, and landscaped areas.