Agenda item

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 21 May 2012.  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 Development Manager detailed the background to the report explaining that outline planning permission had been granted on appeal in January 2006 and a reserved matters application had been approved in December 2007.  He stated that this application proposed a dwelling which was almost identical to that previously approved but this was 300mm further back into the site to allow for additional parking space to the front.  The windows proposed had also been reduced in size and the eaves amended to line through with the adjacent building at number 12.    

            Mr. P. Keenan, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the proposed house was identical in height to that approved in December 2007, was the same height as the neighbouring property and had been designed to fit the plot which was restricted in size.  He commented on the letter of objection which had been received explaining that he intended to build a similar property to his neighbour.  On the issue of whether the dwelling would be modest, he said that the neighbouring property was less modest than the one he intended to build.       

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            The local Member, Councillor G. Diskin, spoke against the application saying that the proposed three storey four bedroomed property would be out of character with the neighbouring properties.  She understood that it would also be higher than the dwellings on either side of the site, was an overdevelopment of a small plot and would have an overbearing effect.  It was reported that when outline permission was granted on appeal by the Planning Inspector, it had been indicated that it would be possible to accommodate a modest detached dwelling on the plot in a manner that it would maintain adequate space between the dwelling and the boundaries of the site.  Councillor Diskin also referred to a letter from the Hawarden Estate (also referred to in the late observations sheet) which stated that a drain associated with a stream which ran through the site and into neighbouring gardens had been damaged during clearing of the site.  She requested that the application be refused. 

            Councillor Bithell said that although it was a confined space, the site had been granted outline planning permission.  However he felt that the pitch of the roof could be altered to be more in keeping with other nearby properties.  Councillor W.O. Thomas said that it was a very small plot for a four bedroomed property. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom said that he took the view of the local Member very seriously but added that the issue of the principle of development was not in dispute.  He said that the proposed dwelling could not be classed as the modest dwelling indicated by the Inspector.  He also commented on the limited parking on the front of the site but added that cars would not be able to turn around in the small space.  Councillor Heesom queried whether the previous reserved matters approval had been a committee or officer decision.  He said that attention should be paid to the local Member’s views and that the application should be refused.  Councillor D. Butler said that in granting the outline planning permission, the inspector had considered that a modest dwelling could be accommodated on the plot.  Councillor Butler did not think that the dwelling proposed was a modest one. 

            In response to a comment from Councillor H.G. Roberts, the Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that there was no requirement for vehicles to be able to turn around on the site as it was an unclassified road. 

            The Development Manager said that the two car parking spaces on the site met standards.  He mentioned the Hawarden Estate letter to which Councillor Diskin had earlier referred, where it was requested that permission include a condition requiring reinstatement and maintenance of the drain.  However, the Development Manager indicated that this was a private matter and a condition would not be appropriate.  He agreed that the Inspector had referred to a ‘modest’ development on the basis of the information before him but this had been followed by a reserved matters submission which met the Council’s standards. He added that this earlier permission had recently expired in 2011 and unless there were changes in policy or other material considerations there were no grounds to refuse the application.

            RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.