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. The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

                        The application was for the erection of a side and rear extension along with an improved access and double timber garage at Top yr Allt Cottage, Blackbrook Lane, Sychdyn. The application also included the temporary siting of a storage container and static caravan for residential use whilst the building work was being undertaken.  The application was an amendment to the previous application reference number 055612 with the main issue for consideration being the principle of development, impact on visual amenity and the highway.

                        Councillor Dunbar proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said the application made a number of minor changes to the previous approval, reduced the massing of the proposed extension and moved the garage.

                        Councillor Bateman, whilst supporting the application, queried the requirement for the temporary siting of a storage container.  The officer explained that a temporary permission was approved when the previous application was considered which was usual for such an application, with the container being removed after 12 months once the work had been undertaken.

                        Councillor Bithell and Councillor Peers both commented on the lack of content in the report.  Councillor Bithell said the building was 186 years old and queried whether or not the application was in keeping with a building of that age.  Councillor Peers said the application site was outside the settlement boundary however there was no explanation as to why it was acceptable and recommended for approval.  The officer explained that the application followed a previous application considered by the Committee when the main consultations had been undertaken with the conservation section.  No objections had been raised at that time.  On being outside the settlement boundary and in line with HSG12 on extensions to dwellings, the development was outside the settlement boundary but it was in scale and character with the existing building and was not overdevelopment of the site.

                        In response to a further question from Councillor Bithell, the officer explained that the increased footprint was less than 50% so was within an acceptable limit when referring to HSG12.

            RESOLVED:

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