Agenda item

The Committee considered an application which sought permission to convert the existing three bedroom family dwelling into a pair of flats at ground and first floor with the erection of a part two storey part single storey rear extension.

The application had been called to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor T Aziz, who disagreed with most of the points raised by the Planning Officer regarding why this application should be refused. Councillor T Aziz stated that there were other subdivided properties in the area and that as there was no front or side extension proposed, this would not change or harm the street scene. The Planning Officer concurred that there were similar developments in the Borough however the introduction of a flatted development on this street was unacceptable, as it would undermine the established character of the area and there was no history of the conversion of single family dwellings on this street. Councillor T Aziz thought that this kind of development should be encouraged as it would provide two reasonable sized family dwellings. He also commented that the surrounding area should be taken into consideration, not just this street, when looking for a precedent in subdivision of property. Councillor T Aziz did not consider the proposal to be overbearing to neighbouring properties, a view that was disputed by the LPA. The Planning Officer commented that the extension was a depth of 7m, which would have an overbearing impact on neighbours (as set out in the report) and it would also set an undesirable precedent in the street; if this was allowed it would be almost impossible to refuse further subdivisions on the same street.

The Planning Officer explained that Policy DM11 required each residential unit to have a section of private amenity space, which the application did not. It was considered that the lack of private amenity space for one or both of the proposed units resulted in a poor standard of amenity for future residential occupiers.

Councillor T Aziz proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor A Boote that the application be approved.

Debate continued.

Some Members supported the Planning Officer recommendation and commented that the extension would be overbearing and the lack of amenity space was unacceptable.

It was noted that the applicant had circulated to the Planning Committee a proposed solution to provide a private amenity space to both flats. This plan had not been formally submitted to the LPA and a number of Members confirmed that they had not seen it. Peter Bryant advised the Committee that they could not take the proposed plan into account in their determination of the application as it had not been formally submitted to the LPA and not everyone had sight of it. It would be considered wholly unreasonable to take account of this plan when voting.

Following a suggestion from the Committee, Thomas James, Development Manager confirmed that it would not be appropriate to make a decision on the application and leave the amenity space provision subject to a condition. The amenity space plan must be submitted to the LPA formally so that it could be given appropriate consideration by Planning Officers.

On receiving this advice, Councillor T Aziz withdrew his motion to approve the application, supported by Councillor A Boote. Councillor T Aziz proposed and Councillor A Boote duly seconded that the application be deferred to allow the applicant time to formally submit the proposed amenity space plans and come back to a future Planning Committee meeting for determination. It was noted that if the motion was supported, the application would need to be debated in full not just on the grounds of the amenity space.

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 deferral of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz,  A J Boote, G Chrystie, S Hussain, L Morales and C Rana.

                                 TOTAL:  6

Against:                              Cllrs G Cundy and L Lyons.

                                 TOTAL:  2

Present but not voting:      Cllr M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore deferred.

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred.