Decision details

[NOTE 1: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr Laurence Rogers attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Laurence Evans spoke in support.]

The Committee considered a proposal for the erection of a part two storey, part single storey replacement dwelling following the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling and detached garage. The replacement dwelling would be erected in the same location as the existing dwelling and included a two storey front projecting element with a double garage.

Following concerns raised about the inaccuracy of the block plan, the Planning Officer confirmed that the case officer had visited the site and that the report before the Committee was based on their observations of the site, not the block plan.

Regarding the Tree Protection Order (TPO) oak tree on site, the Planning Officers advised the Committee that the Council had already approved a TPO felling order on the tree as it was suffering from fungus, not to facilitate the application.

Some Councillors thought that the footprint of the replacement dwelling was almost the same as the original and also liked the proposed design. The wall of the existing garage had a separation distance of 20cm from the boundary and this was the proposed separation distance of the replacement dwelling. Some Councillors thought that this was acceptable as it was like for like, however some Councillors thought that as the original structure was to be demolished the 1m boundary separation that would be applied to new builds should be applied.

A number of Members commented that the west elevation of the proposed plan was a massive overbearing structure on number 2 Hook Hill Park and thought that it did not comply with policy CS21.

Councillor S Ashall, Ward Councillor, commented that only by visiting the site could you get a true sense of the overbearing impact that this development would have on neighbouring properties. Referring to the detail of Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy Councillor S Ashall commented that the application should respect andmake a positive contribution to the street scene and the character of the area in which they were situated,paying due regard to the scale, height, proportions, building lines, layout, materials and othercharacteristics of adjoining buildings and land; he did not think the application complied with this policy.

Councillor S Ashall proposed and it was duly seconded to refuse the application on the grounds that it had an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above.  The votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs S Ashall, G Chrystie and N Martin.

                                 TOTAL:  3

Against:                              Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, I Eastwood and L Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Present but not voting:      Cllrs G Cundy (Chairman) and M A Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  2

The application was therefore not refused.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions.