Agenda item

[NOTE: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Ms Tina Clapham spoke in objection to the application. There was no registered speaker in support.]

The Committee considered a section 73 application to vary Condition 2 (approved plans), Condition 7 (removal of 'permitted development' rights for gates and enclosures) and Condition 8 (landscaping) of planning permission PLAN/2019/0403 (Proposed construction of 2no. detached two storey dwellings (each with 5no. bedrooms) with accommodation within the roof space with dormer windows following demolition of existing property, retention of existing access and associated hard surfacing) to allow for a new vehicular access and separate drive to Plot 1 and to allow the provision of gates for both vehicular accesses.

Some Members queried whether enforcement action would be necessary if this application was refused. The Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant would be expected to revert back to the previous approved scheme and if not, enforcement action would be taken.

Discussion ensued around the two trees that had been removed by the applicant and whether they were given permission to do so. The Planning Officer explained that legislation allowed for dangerous tress to be removed subject to prior notification to the Local Authority; in this situation the Aboricultural Officer had visited the trees and confirmed that they were dead and could be removed.

Some Members considered the four trees that would replace the two lost trees, would be sufficient to mitigate the affect this application would have on the character of the area. The Planning Officer commented that the impact on the existing trees would be fundamental and that the recommendation for refusal was based on the affect it would have on the character of the area. In response to a follow on comment, the Planning Officer stated that the fact all other dwellings had an individual access, a joint access to these properties would not be considered out of character.

It was question whether a condition could be added that confirmed the newly planted hedge must be allowed to grow to a certain height. The Planning Officer commented that the issue was not just the height of the hedge, but the density also. The view of the Planning Officer was that allowing this application would negatively affect the character of the area.

A fellow Councillor read out the statement of Councillor L Rice, who had called this application in to the Planning Committee for consideration but was unable to attend the meeting. In the statement Councillor L Rice said that he thought the issues regarding the trees had been largely addressed and that he thought the replacement trees would mitigate the loss of amenity from the felled trees.

The Planning Officer commented that just because a number of changes had been made to the site already, that did not mean that the application should be approved, as it did go against the original application. The proposed changes would make the site substantially different.

Some Councillors commented that the width of the drive in the application was enormous, and the gates were out of character with the area; the loss of trees was also regretful.

Councillor T Aziz proposed that the application be approved. This motion was not supported by a seconder.

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

In favour:                           Cllrs G Cosnahan, S Dorsett, C Martin, S Oades and T Spenser. 

TOTAL:                              5 

Against:                              Cllr T Aziz. 

TOTAL:                              1 

Present but not voting:      Cllrs S Greentree, D Jordan and L M N Morales (Chairman).

TOTAL:                              3 

The application was therefore refused. 

RESOLVED

That planning permission be REFUSED.