Agenda item

The application was for a single storey front extension.

This application would normally be determined under the Scheme of Delegation for officers; however, it was reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Sturt.

Members were advised of the following updates:

‘A further letter of objection on behalf of the objector at No.10 has been received from a firm of solicitors.   This 4 page A4 document contains 18 bullet points and raises a number of concerns regarding perceived inaccuracies or omissions within the committee report.

The points raised, fall into 3 areas, namely: character, amenity and parking. 

In respect  of character, the further letter of objection notes an area of lawn between the border referenced at para 2.2 of the report and the hardstanding has not been referenced; submits there is an established building line in the spur, but then also submits that the dwellings are staggered to one another and further adds that the report overly relies on the presence of vegetative features as visual mitigation to the proposal, a further area of concern raised is that the case officer has not understood the nature of previous works undertaken at the application property.    Substantive detail is provided on each of the points raised; however officers note that the consideration of the proposal’s impact on character is largely subjective and it is not considered the matters raised in this letter of objection materially alter the assessment undertaken in the committee report.     

In terms of amenity, the objection cites a failure to have regard to the cumulative impact of the proposed works and those previously undertaken on the objector’s amenity, claims the case officer assessment in terms of loss of privacy is flawed and cites, by reference to a photograph that direct views into the front facing windows already exists.  In respect of this latter point, if this is accepted by the Committee it becomes a question of whether the proposal could be said to significantly and detrimentally alter the existing relationship. 

The final concern is the loss of available parking spaces to serve the property.   In this regard there is no evidence to suggest that the proposal would impede the applications property ability to provide 2 on-site parking spaces.  It is also noted that there is no County Highways objection to the application.

In summary while the content of this letter of objection is noted this does not materially alter the assessment undertaken on the merits of the application and it remains that officers recommend that the application be approved.’ 

The Ward Member advised Members that there were strict deeds related to the property therefore the development would be out of character and there would be a parking and amenity issue.

Other Members felt the proposal would constitute overdevelopment, when all the houses were meant to be set back.  There would also be a loss of a parking space and trees and shrubs.

Resolved that application 16/0575 be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Committee Members had received a letter from the applicant.

Councillor Conrad Sturt also declared that he had been contacted by the resident at number 10 in relation to the application.

Note 2

The recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Max Nelson and seconded by Councillor Nick Chambers.

Note 3

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Nick Chambers Vivienne Chapman, Edward Hawkins, Malcaus Cooper, Max Nelson, Adrian Page, Robin Perry and Ian Sams.

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors, Surinder Gandhum, Paul Ilnicki, David Mansfield, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder, and Valerie White.