Agenda item

Application for single storey side and rear extension.

‘Late items:’

Additional Information:-

The Council has received a letter in which concerns have been raised that a member of planning committee who has voted on this application lives on the same street as the application site and therefore may have a personal interest in the application. Questions have been raised with this member’s involvement in the determination of this application at planning committee.

Additional information has been provided to committee by the applicant’s mother regarding her daughter`s condition and the requirements for the extension. :

‘My daughter has a Rett syndrome, which is complex neurological disorder, she is non-verbal, she cannot use her hands, she requires lifelong support 24hrs a day 7 days a week.

It makes me very sad that Committee is so concern about how much the layout of my house is appropriate or not, but no one absolutely no one is concern about dignity and quality of my daughter’s life, and most of all her rights to access her own room and bathroom.’

Officer Comments:-

The Council has a public sector equality duty, under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which is outlined in the officer report to committee, paragraph 5 of appendix A. The Committee needs to have `due regard` to the need to remove or minimise disadvantages suffered in this case by the daughter. `Due Regard` is more than simply a requirement to have a general regard; real thought must be given to the public sector equality duty and its requirements. The considerations of the need of the disabled person must be considered by planning committee as it is a significant material consideration and it is a legal duty on the council and its committees.

A case determined only last month in the High Court has held that the duty applies to the grant of planning permission, and, logically therefore, it must also apply to a refusal of planning permission as a decision to refuse is HBBC exercising its public functions, ie the determination of planning applications under section 70 of the TCPA 1990.

Members have highlighted that they are minded to refuse this application, although no specific reason was recorded in the minutes of the June committee. Any harm identified would need to significantly outweigh the benefits this application provides to a person with a disability which is a protected characteristic.

However, Officers have advised consistently on the three occasions on which this application has been before committee that the proposed extension will not detrimentally harm the character of the area, nor the amenity of neighbouring residents nor cause harm to highway safety. There are no statutory consultee objections. The proposal has been designed in conjunction with a social services occupational therapist at Leicestershire County Council and grant officer at HBBC and is the only feasible option to create a suitable adaptation. This proposal would provide an improvement to the living conditions of a disabled person which is a significant material consideration in favour of the development. The recommendation to planning committee remains, consistently, as previously, to approve subject to conditions.

Application for a single storey side and rear extension.

It was moved by Councillor Hollick and seconded by Councillor Lynch that permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report.

The Interim Head of Planning requested that voting on the motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

Councillors Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick, Lynch, Nichols, Surtees, Sutton and Witherford voted FOR the motion (8);

Councillors Cook, Richards and Roberts abstained from voting.

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to conditions outlined in the officer’s report, with the final detail of planning conditions delegated to the Interim Head of Planning.