Issue - meetings

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit.  The usual considerations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

In speaking against the application, Mr. N. Hammond explained his reasons, as detailed in the report, for seeking refusal to the development.  These included conflict with a number of policies, overdevelopment of the site, loss of view and natural light at his property along with the visual impact of the development which was out of character with the neighbourhood.

Councillor Derek Butler proposed that the application be granted, in line with the officer recommendation.  He felt the proposed development broadly complied with policies and was in keeping with nearby properties.  He said that the applicant had worked closely with officers to make necessary adjustments and that the loss of light to the neighbouring property was a minor consideration amongst the findings.

The proposal to grant the application was seconded by Councillor Billy Mullin who agreed that the development was in line with others permitted in the area and that the loss of light was not a major consideration.

Councillor Gareth Roberts also spoke in support of the officer recommendation to grant the application based on the findings of the report.

Councillor Richard Jones referred to the garage at the rear of the property and raised queries on permitted development rights and rights to maintain the property along the boundary with the neighbouring property.

The officer explained that the garage had been reduced in size following a previous application and that the side extension would not impose on private amenity space to the rear of the property to which access was available.  Rights of maintenance were as set out in the Deeds and were a civil issue.  In respect of parking, the Highways section was satisfied with the revised provision and the design was in keeping with other dwellings in the area.  Consideration on the loss of light had concluded there was no material impact on the adjoining property.

In summing up, Councillor Butler acknowledged that the applicant had worked closely with officers to identify solutions.  He felt that the loss of light was a tenuous issue but was satisfied that the application complied with policies.

On being put to the vote, the proposal to grant the application was carried.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).