Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2018 .

The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.  (15 votes for 0 against and 1 abstention).

The Chairman reminded Members that they should not vote on an application

if they are not present at the meeting to hear the entire debate on the

application. The Chairman also welcomed public speakers to the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Committee considered the reports of the Business Manager – Strategic Place, together with comments of public speakers, additional information reported by the officers and information detailed in the late representations updates document previously circulated.

It was noted that a satisfactory scheme of on and/or off-site landscaping has been submitted.

It was proposed by Councillor J Hook, seconded by Councillor Prowse and

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard three year time-limit for commencement.

2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3. Parking to be provided and retained in accordance with the approved plans.

(15 votes for and 0 against)

It was noted that the principle of a dwelling on this site had been given.

Public Speaker, Objector – Objected on the grounds of overbearing, overlooking and loss of privacy; the principle of a dwelling on the site was granted on appeal and to be limited in size; the proposed structure would be closer to the boundary fence with additional fully glazed windows; and very visible in the street scene. 

Public Speaker, Supporter – The additional internal floor space is required for added natural light and adaptations; the roof height would be unchanged; the added floor space of just 17 square meters would provide much needed benefit to the occupiers; and would protrude just 2.4 metres from the originally approved footprint and design.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Note: The Committee unanimously agreed to waiver normal speaking procedure and allow the supporter to be assisted by another person in addressing the Committee given the supporter’s personal circumstances.

Comments made by Members included: the Town Council does not support the application on the grounds of overdevelopment, and a dominating effect on the amenities of neighbours; the principle of development was allowed on appeal; no one has a right to a view; the internal changes are not of a concern; the proposed extension and increase in footprint is not a significant area; and the ridge height is not affected. 

It was proposed by Councillor Bullivant, seconded by Councillor Dennis and

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard three year time limit for commencement.

2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3. Removal of Permitted Development Rights.

4. Obscure glazing condition (bathroom windows to south elevation).

5. Development to accord with recommendations of Ecology Survey.

6. Notwithstanding the approved plans, details/sample of cladding materials to be approved by Local Planning Authority.

(10 votes for and 5 against)

The Principal Planning Officer advised that a further condition was recommended to those detailed in the report circulated with the agenda as follows: Boundary treatments to be agreed.

Comments made by Councillors included: a corner plot development would be overdevelopment; not in keeping with the street scene; surface water issues; unsuitable access with poor visibility; the previous application was refused on surface water drainage issues and these issues have not been addressed. 

It was proposed by Councillor Hocking, seconded by Councillor J Hook and

Resolved

Permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.  Overdevelopment.

2.  Detrimental to the amenities of neighbours and out of keeping with the street scene.

3.  Surface water drainage.

4.  Unsuitable access.

(13 votes for and 3 against)

The Committee noted appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate on

appeals against refusal of planning permission as set out in the report circulated.