Issue - meetings

Following a decision of ‘minded to refuse’ at the previous meeting, this application is brought to this meeting for decision.

Late items:

Consultations:-

One further letter of representation has been received raising the same concerns as previously set out in the Committee Report.

One additional message to Members of Planning Committee raising the following concerns and as previously set out in the Committee Report:

1)         Car parking and traffic

2)         Waste

3)         House valuations

4)         Noise and anti-social behaviour

Appraisal:-

Revised existing ground floor plans and site plans to show the existing layout and formation of the property have been submitted.

For clarity the proposed single storey rear extension would project approximately 3.5 metres along the boundary with No. 66 and would then step in, away from the boundary, projecting approximately a further 1.5 metres with a width of approximately 5.6 metres. The proposed extension would have a flat roof, measuring approximately 3 metres in height. The proposed single storey rear extension would not be visible from the street scene and as a result of the subservient and stepped in nature would not impact upon the character of the host dwelling.

The proposed rear extension by virtue of its single storey nature and tapered boundary with the adjacent property, no. 66, would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity of no. 66 or any neighbouring properties and would not result in a loss of light, a loss of privacy or an adverse overbearing effect. The proposal would also step in from the boundary of the site, alleviating any further impact upon the residential amenity of no. 66.

Application for two storey side and single storey rear extension.

Following a decision of “minded to refuse” at the previous meeting, some members continued to express concern about the cumulative impact of the extensions to this property and that it was out of character for the area. It was moved by Councillor Taylor and seconded by Councillor Bill that the application be refused for these reasons. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

Members expressed concern in relation to the number of residents in the property, and in response it was explained that up to six at any one time could reside without planning permission where the property was a house in multiple occupation. It was agreed that a note to applicant would be included to remind the landlord of this. A commitment from officers to monitor the site four times a year for five years via unannounced spot checks was given.

It was then moved by Councillor Sutton and seconded by Councillor Cook that the application be approved with an additional condition requiring details of parking for construction traffic to be submitted and a note to applicant in relation to the number of residents inhabiting the property. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report, an additional condition in relation to parking for construction traffic and a note to applicant about the number of residents inhabiting the property at any one time.

Application for two storey side and single storey rear extension.

Application for two storey side and single storey rear extension.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that the application be approved, it was moved by Councillor Taylor and seconded by Councillor Witherford that they be minded to refuse permission on grounds of impact on residential amenity. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – Members be minded to refuse the application and it be brought to the following meeting for decision.