Minutes:
(Councillor Steven Lee had left the meeting and was not present for the discussion or vote taken in relation to this application).
The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for two storey side extension, single storey rear extension, first floor rear Juliet balcony and front porch following demolition of existing garage.
Prior to the consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):
· Mr Renaud (to object) (read out by the Democratic Services Officer)
The Committee received a presentation from the Team Leader, Justin Williams and noted that the application had been referred to Committee owing to the number of letters of representation received in objection to the application. The site was located within the urban area and also within the residential area which was comprised of other similarly styled properties which were semi-detached with good sized gardens. The two-storey side extension to the side of the property and the single storey side extension was to the front. There was a small front porch proposed as well. The side extension had been set down from the height of the existing dwelling house and was also set back from the front elevation. There was an attached garage which was proposed to be demolished and replaced with a two-storey extension.
The Committee noted that the application had received 16 letters of objection which had been summarised in the report. A further letter of representation was received following the publication of the agenda and was detailed on the supplementary late sheets.
The proposed side extension and front porch would be visible in the street but by the nature of the design it was considered by planning officers to be a subservient addition to the dwelling and would not materially harm the visual amenities of the street scene. It was considered that the proposal would not materially harm the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent properties. Officers were satisfied that the proposal would comply with policies within the Local Plan and the application was therefore recommended for approval.
The Committee discussed the application and were sympathetic to the concerns raised by the neighbour. Planning officers advised that the construction process would always inevitably have some impact on neighbours owing to noise and dust created, even for very small-scale developments. That in itself was not a reason to refuse planning permission. The report did address the equality issues around making planning decisions and that members needed to be mindful that whilst they had heard one objection tonight, they could not make an assessment about the impact of this on just one adjoining resident but all residents within the immediate area.
The Committee noted a query raised in relation to the proposed rear extension, that the hatched area shown on the plan did not appear to show the rear extension. Was the irregularly shaped area above the house the entire rear extension? It was confirmed that the plan included the rear and side extension and that the plan needed to be viewed from the other way around. It was also queried whether the number of bedrooms had increased from 3 to 5? Planning officers confirmed that there had been an approved certificate for lawful development for the creation of a rear dormer window to include habitable accommodation in the roof area and the works had been approved under a certificate. The rear door had also been removed from the plan, the front roof lights and the 1-metre-high close boarded fence and gate. It was also confirmed that the works could be completed via permitted development. Lastly, it was queried what the percentage increase in floor area was? Planning officers confirmed that given the site was located in the urban area, floor percentage increases were not assessed as was required in Green Belt areas.
The Committee noted comments that whilst access to the rear of the property would be limited the removal of the garage was perceived as a positive. Great empathy was noted for the neighbours negatively impacted by the proposed development. In such cases, whilst it was not within the Committee’s remit to mandate referrals, the ward councillor was encouraged to make contact with the affected resident so that the relevant Council support service could engage with them.
The Committee wished to receive further information on the equality and diversity issue that was raised. Planning officers confirmed that there was a requirement under International Human Rights Law that they took into account equality and diversity and those issues had been taken into account as detailed in the report.
The Committee noting the neighbours concerns over the potential disruption caused by the proposed development agreed to add an informative to advise on the Control of Pollution Act, and to specify the time period for noisy building works on the boundary of the application site. It was also noted that there was already legislation in place that restricted when people were permitted to build.
The Chairperson, Councillor Vanessa King moved the officer’s recommendation to approve application 24/P/00855, subject to the additional informative as detailed above, and Councillor Joss Bigmore seconded that motion which was carried.
RECORDED VOTE LIST
|
||||
|
COUNCILLOR |
FOR |
AGAINST |
ABSTAIN |
1 |
Cllr Joss Bigmore |
X |
|
|
2 |
The Deputy Mayor, Cllr Howard Smith |
|
X |
|
3 |
Cllr Maddy Redpath |
X |
|
|
4 |
Cllr Dominique Williams |
X |
|
|
5 |
Cllr Joanne Shaw |
X |
|
|
6 |
Cllr David Bilbé |
X |
|
|
7 |
Cllr Lizzie Griffiths |
X |
|
|
8 |
Cllr Cait Taylor |
|
|
X |
9 |
Cllr Stephen Hives |
|
|
X |
10 |
Cllr Richard Mills |
|
|
X |
11 |
Cllr Bilal Akhtar |
X |
|
|
12 |
Cllr Pat Oven |
|
X |
|
13 |
Cllr Vanessa King |
X |
|
|
14 |
Cllr Gillian Harwood |
X |
|
|
|
TOTALS |
9 |
2 |
3 |
In conclusion, having taken consideration of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee
RESOLVED to approve application 24/P/00855, subject to the additional informative and conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.
Supporting documents: