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 considered by the Planning Committee at the meeting on 8 December 2020 and the Committee had deferred determination of the application to allow the applicant time to formally submit the amended proposed amenity space plans. The Planning Officer advised the Committee that the plans still did not adhere to Planning Policy.

The Chairman commented that that there had been a meeting with Planning Officers earlier in the day to which Ward Councillors had been invited to attend. It was noted that if Members had wanted to raise comparable properties in the area this should have been discussed with Planning Officers in advance of the meeting so that the Planning Officer had the opportunity to consider whether these were a precedent and affected the recommendation.

The Chairman advised Councillor T Aziz that he would not allow him to raise any further comparable properties in the meeting.

Councillor T Aziz commented that he thought the units met the minimum standard and that the rear extension to the property would provide two good quality units. No change could be seen from the front of the property. Councillor T Aziz commented that there had been a healthy debate at the previous meeting and he thought that the application had been deferred as the subdivision of the amenity space was not clear.

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

Debate continued.

Some other Members commented that they disagreed with the approval of the application as it would have an impact on the character of the area, be overbearing on neighbouring properties and was indicative of over development. Some Councillors thought that the amenity space was not sufficient and that the division of a property would set an undesirable precedent as there was nothing comparable in the area.

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 approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, A J Boote and C Rana.

                                 TOTAL:  3

Against:                              Cllrs G Chrystie, G Cundy, S Hussain and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Present but not voting:      Cllrs L M N Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore not approved.

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

In favour:                           Cllrs G Chrystie, G Cundy and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  3

Against:                              Cllrs T Aziz, A J Boote and S Hussain.

                                 TOTAL:  3

Present but not voting:      Cllrs L M N Morales and C Rana.

                                 TOTAL:  2

Due to the equality of votes in favour and against refusal of this application, the Chairman exercised a second and casting vote in accordance with paragraph 39(2) of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972, to refuse the application.

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be REFUSED.