Minutes for Planning Committee meeting, Nov 25 2009, 6.30PM official page

The committee received and considered an agenda report detailing one appeal which had been allowed by the planning inspectorate and four which had been dismissed.

Councillors welcomed the four dismissed appeals, congratulating the officers in this matter.

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received.

A list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings is presented.

Recommendation

that the report be received.  

The committee received and considered details of forthcoming inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

That the report be received.

The committee received and considered report 49/09 of the head of planning detailing planning applications, the decisions of which are recorded below.

Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first.

As referred to elsewhere in these minutes, this application was not considered.

The committee was advised of an amendment to paragraph 5.8 in the report in that the west elevation of the listed building faced the site and not the east elevation as stated.

Martin Smith made a statement on behalf of the town council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matter already covered in appendix 2 to the report.  He particularly raised concern regarding access; density; adverse impact on the listed building; adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and loss of open space.

Hilary Milne made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding impact on the conservation area; previous permissions and development; local objection to the proposal; over development in terms of the size of the plot; the access being not adopted; the proposal being contrary to the residential design guide; overlooking; lack of significant boundary treatment; reduction in the hedge; loss of open views; impact on the listed building and pedestrian safety along Tatham Road.

David Thomas the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application commenting as follows: -

• the access to plot 3 already existed and the garage was in existence.  There was therefore no increase in access;

• the report dealt comprehensively with the concerns raised;

• the plans had been revised to take account of officer comments;

• the density was the only matter in dispute and not the principle of development which was already established;

• there was a need to make efficient use of land and that the density was acceptable;

• the site was a private residential garden and not open space.  It was previously developed land;

• Apart from a small gap in the hedge the site was entirely enclosed;

• the only view into site was from the entrance;

• none of the professional consultees had objected;

• there were no objections from the county engineer;

• the flow of traffic in the vicinity was slow and there were few traffic movements or pedestrians; and

• the drainage engineer; the conservation officer and the arboricultural officer had raised no objections.

One of the local councillors speaking on behalf of the other local councillor expressed concern at the proposal in terms of its density in the conservation area.  She commented that she disagreed with the conclusions in the officer’s report stating that the character and appearance of the conservation area would not be preserved.  She stated that all of the modern development in the surrounding area had been restricted to single storey or chalet bungalows to preserve the rural setting. She raised concern regard adverse impact on the listed building; slab levels; overlooking; the access being unsuitable and increased traffic.

Councillors spoke in support of the application agreeing with the conclusion reached in the report. Whilst the proposal was unpopular locally, this was not a material planning consideration. In terms of impact on the listed building “Joymount”, there were no views of it which would be compromised.  Furthermore “Joymount” was surrounded by development.  It was commented that this was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

Councillor Richard Farrell had declared a personal interest in this application.

Mr Eric Richardson made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matter already covered in the report.  In particular he raised concerns regarding proximity; loss of privacy; overshadowing; loss of light; adverse impact on the residential amenity of the residents of the neighbouring property; height; loss of outlook; over dominance and increased traffic.

Andrew Miles, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the proposal was for a small cottage on an infill plot.  He stated that in drawing up the proposal there had been design and siting changes to ensure that the proposal fitted well into the site and complemented the street scene.  He referred to the support for the proposal by the planning and conservation officers and the highway’s agency.  He stated that the proposal was a similar scale to other properties in the street and that there was an added garden room to lessen the impact on the neighbouring property.  He stated that the development would not be cramped on the site; there was sufficient parking and an appropriate means of access.  Finally, he explained that the impact had been addressed; the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the amenity of neighbours and the proposal according with planning policies.

The local councillor raised concern regarding the proposal in terms of its impact on the side facing windows in the neighbouring house, Little Fieldside.  He stated that the neighbouring house was very small and whilst there was a window facing the road, this did not provide adequate light to the property.  He stated that the other windows were therefore important.

Councillors spoke in support of the application commenting that it would fit into the street scene and the proposal was to the side of the neighbouring house with a distance of some two metres between. It was considered that there would be some impact but that this was not so significant as to warrant refusal.

It was suggested that condition 4 set out in the report be amended to require that no development shall proceed above slab level until details of the slab levels had been submitted to and agreed with the planning officers.  Furthermore, it was suggested that a condition should be added seeking a redesign of the side elevation to remove the windows on the elevation facing Little Fieldside to avoid window to window overlooking and a condition to require that the wall and gate be maintained or reinstated should there be any damage to them during construction.

Some councillors expressed concern regarding the proposal disagreeing with the view that there would be no adverse impact on the neighbouring property.

By 10 votes to 4, it was

RESOLVED

that application BLE/5085/6 be approved subject to: -

(1)       the conditions set out in the report with condition 4 being amended to require that no development shall proceed above slab level until details of the slab  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

Councillor Anthony Hayward and John Woodford had both declared a personal interest in this item.

A representative of Adrian James, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application making the following comment: -

• the planning history of the site was a relevant consideration;

• the proposal would not be cramped on the site and there was adequate amenity area;

• looking at the existing permitted proposal, the living spaces were as close to the boundary as those previously approved;

• the house was further east to sit better with neighbouring houses;

• the permitted house had a larger foot print taking into account permitted development and that this was relevant and should be taken into account; and

• the plot and woodland would be in same ownership.

One of the local councillors explained that he had requested that this application be brought to committee for consideration as in his view the proposal was finely balanced.

Some councillors spoke against the application in terms of the loss of the beech tree; the bulk of the proposal; the limited amount of amenity area and impact on the character and appearance of the area.  However, it was reported that the applicant had now advised that the tree could be retained. 

Other councillors spoke in support of the application welcoming the interesting design and recognising that a previous permission existed on the site.  It was suggested that approval of the application should be delegated to the head of planning, subject to confirming the retention and protection of the tree.

One of the local councillors commented that he had concerns regarding the proposal in terms of its limited amenity area and overdevelopment.

It was proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson that application APT/8455/6 be refused for the reasons set out in the report.  On being put to the vote, this was lost by 9 votes to 5.

It was thereupon proposed by the chair, and by 11 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions it was

RESOLVED

that the head of planning in consultation with the chair and / or vice-chair of the development control committee be delegated authority to approve application APT/8455/6 subject to conditions, such conditions to include the protection and retention of the beech tree on the site.

Councillors Matthew Barber, Paul Burton, Roger Cox, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Bob Johnston, John Morgan, Jerry Patterson, Terry Quinlan, Val Shaw, Margaret Turner and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this application.

Councillor Anthony Hayward had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this items and left the meeting during its consideration.

By 13 votes to nil with 1 of the voting councillors not being present during consideration of this application, it was

RESOLVED

that application BUC/9905/16 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

None.