Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, the access being unsatisfactory and failure to comply with the Council’s standards on separation distances and space about dwellings.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the late observations sheet where two further letters of objection were detailed along with an amendment to the conditions in the recommendation which included the deletion of condition nine and the inclusion of three additional conditions.  Clarification was also included that the applicant’s agent had not confirmed how the applicant wished to pay the public open space contribution.

Planning permission for a three bedroom dwelling house had been granted on 2 December 2008 and expired on 1 December 2013 which included off road parking for No. 6 Fern Leigh.  Due to the economic climate, the site remained undeveloped with the application proposing an additional unit on the site to improve its prospect for development by providing two new affordable homes with parking to both the front and rear of the properties.  The officer detailed the distances from the Club building and no. 6 Fern Leigh and explained that, even though the proposals included the siting of a dwelling only a short distance from the rear of no. 6, this property was sited at an angle.  It was therefore considered that the proposals would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenities of adjoining residents in terms of loss of light or privacy. 

                        Ms. J. Stewart spoke against the application explaining that her concerns were on the grounds of overlooking, loss of privacy and issues of parallel parking with cars having to reverse from the garages onto the road.  She also raised concern at the noise from the Workingmen’s Club which had been reported to the police.    

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the site already had extant permission so the principle of development had been established.  He referred to the comments about the Workingmen’s Club but said that there were no reports of disturbances and added that purchasers of the properties would be aware of the existence of the club before they bought the dwellings.  He felt that there were no legitimate planning reasons to refuse the application. 

            Councillor R.B. Jones referred to differences between this proposal and the application which had been approved in December 2008 and commented upon the access onto the unadopted road onto which vehicles would have to reverse.  He also referred to the difference in height from the original proposal and the noise from the club which he felt would be significant.  He referred to the lack of a play area for children who might live in the properties.  He felt that the issues of noise, access onto the unadopted road and the differences from the previous proposal were reasons to refuse this application. 

            Councillor A.M. Halford asked for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 177