Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be refused for the reason 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 on 22 June 2015.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the site had been the subject of a number of applications, with the two most recent applications being dismissed on appeal or refused.         

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the application had been refused twice and dismissed on appeal and even though the height had been reduced by one metre, the proposal was still incongruous.  Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred and indicated that the appeal Inspector had agreed with the decision to refuse the application. 

            A Local Member, Councillor Helen Brown, spoke in support of the application.  She said that the applicant had submitted amended plans which reduced the height by one metre and added that she did not consider the development to be detrimental to the streetscene.  No objections had been received from the neighbours or Hawarden Community Council.  She explained that the applicant wanted to extend his property for himself and his family and asked Members to consider the different type of properties in the area and approve the application. 

            A Local Member, Councillor George Hardcastle, said that he had lived in the area for a number of years and commented on the variety of properties in Aston Park and some of the extensions to properties in the area.  He felt that the application should be approved as he did not feel that it looked out of place and the proposal had been reduced by one metre from the original application.  He asked to committee to consider approving the application. 

            Councillor Alison Halford suggested that the comments of the Local Members should be taken into account and said that it appeared that the officer had decided that they did not like the proposal because of the height.  She did not think that the Inspector’s decision on the previous application should be considered when the applicant had reduced the height for this proposal.  Councillor Halford added that it was unfair to do so as it was not known what the Inspector’s decision would be if this application was refused and went to appeal.  She also said that the application was for an affordable home.   

            In response, the Development Manager said that the recommendation in the report was based on experience of similar proposals which officers faced on a regular basis.  A consistent approach had been taken in the recommendation of refusal and he asked the Committee to also be consistent in their decision.  The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded Members that all reports were in the name of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

            Councillor Richard Lloyd concurred with the earlier comments that there were a variety of property styles in the area and suggested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32