Agenda item

The application was for the division of existing 6 bedroom dwelling to form 2 two bedroom dwellings with associated parking and garden space.

The application would normally have been determined under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, however, it was reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Sturt.

Officers had recommended that the proposal be approved as they felt that the development would be acceptable in terms of the principle of development, in character terms and impact on residential amenity, highways and impact on infrastructure.

However, some Members felt that the proposal would not be in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and there would be a large increase in the density of the dwelling. Parking was also a concern.  It was suggested that the reason for refusal given at a previous Planning Applications Committee meeting for the same proposal should be considered:

‘The sub-division of the site to create a separate additional dwelling would result in a density of use that would be inappropriate development, not in keeping with the established neighbourhood and harmful to the character of the area, contrary to Policies CP2 and DM9 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.’

Some Members felt that as the dwelling would not change externally, the proposal was reasonable and there would be enough parking for two properties on the existing site. The proposal would provide extra housing which was needed in accordance with the need in the five year housing supply.

Resolved that application 16/0759 be refused due to the inappropriate density in the area and being out of character with the established neighbourhood, the wording to be finalised in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that all Members had received documentation from the applicant, and Councillor Sturt had been contacted by residents in his ward.

Note 2

As the application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Roger Chatfield and Mr Andrew Barette spoke in objection and Mr Gareth Bertram, the applicant spoke in support.

Note 3

The recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Colin Dougan and seconded by Councillor Nick Chambers.

Note 4

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 Dan Adams, Nick Chambers, Colin Dougan and Ian Sams.

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Vivienne Chapman, Edward Hawkins, Ruth Hutchinson, David Mansfield, Jonathan Lytle, Katia Malcaus Cooper, Adrian Page, Robin Perry, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder, and Valerie White. 

The recommendation was lost.

Note 5

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Conrad Sturt and seconded by Councillor Pat Tedder.

Note 6

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 refuse the application:

Councillors Vivienne Chapman, Edward Hawkins, Ruth Hutchinson, David Mansfield, Jonathan Lytle, Katia Malcaus Cooper, Adrian Page, Robin Perry, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder, and Valerie White. 

Voting against the recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillors Dan Adams, Nick Chambers, Colin Dougan and Ian Sams.

The recommendation was carried.