Agenda item

The Planning Committee considered two retrospective planning application Nos. 2018/1019 and 2018/1026  for a two storey side and rear addition and two storey rear extension following demolition of the existing rear conservatory with car parking space at rear.

Councillor Ashall Ward Councillor, commented that the footprint, front elevation and the roof line had already been established to be acceptable, and questioned whether the Committee felt what was being requested for in addition to whatever had already been approved had been more harmful to the officers suggestions.

Following a query the Planning Officer explained that the application was, in fact, larger than a scheme which had been refused at Planning Committee in March 2017 under planning application 2016/1324 on the basis of height, bulk and mass.  It had been suggested that subsequent application 2017/1078 which had been approved was now being used to substantiate a fall-back position for a scheme which accentuated concerns raised in the initial refusal. The fall-back position, however was a substantially smaller scheme with relief offered in way of a single story side and rear additions which reduced the overall bulk and mass of the scheme.  The proposal now sought to revert back and extend on a scheme which had been found to be bulky and have a detrimental impact to neighbour amenities.

Some Members felt the previous approved scheme blended in much better than the proposed scheme and found difficulty in understanding the reasoning of the new proposed scheme.

Councillor Aziz was surprised that the application before the Committee had been recommended for refusal, commenting that the proposal had been previously granted with the footprint in the current proposal remaining unchanged. The Planning Officer reiterated on the increased bulk and mass of the proposal which had not been presented in the previous proposal which had been approved.

The Planning Development Team Leader reminded Committee Members to be mindful of practising consistency whilst considering applications brought before the Committee.   Members drew attention to the Planning Officer’s comments on bulk and mass, which were clearly not addressed in the proposed application.  It had been noted that the mass and bulk had been increased by a further 16% of the approved scheme.

Discussions continued and the Deputy Chief Executive Douglas Spinks, reminded Members of the various applications submitted to LPA (Local Planning Authority) by the applicant, explaining that the first application submitted had been refused on grounds of bulk and mass.  The second application submitted had included reduced bulk and mass and had been approved. The application under consideration was larger than the application previously refused. The Committee had been warned on not being consistent if the current application was deemed to be acceptable in view of the previous refusal.

Following a query on the drainage scheme, the Planning Officer explained that the drainage report had been recently submitted to the Drainage Officer and that a  response was awaited.

Peter Bryant, Head of Democratic and Legal Services cautioned the Committee on difficulties if Members were to approve the application without knowing that the drainage proposals had been acceptable.  Whilst acknowledging different views of Members,  he advised the Committee to either refuse the application without the meaningful outcome of the drainage report submitted or to defer the application being minded to approve the proposal at a subsequent Committee meeting assuming the drainage report had been considered to be acceptable by the Council’s Drainage Officers. 

Councillor Morales proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor Ashall that the application be deferred.

In view of the debate  and in accordance to Standing Order 22.2, the votes for and against deferring the application were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                 Cllrs S Ashall, I Eastwood, N Martin and L Morales

                                                TOTAL:  4

Against:                                   Cllrs G Chrystie and M Whitehand

                                                TOTAL:  2

Present but noting voting:       Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote and G Cundy (Chairman)

                                                TOTAL:  3

The proposal to defer the application was therefore carried by four votes in favour and two against.

            RESOLVED

              That       (i)     planning application No. 2018/1019 be deferred                                 pending a response on a drainage report                                        submitted; and

                            (ii)    planning application No. 2018/2026 be deferred                                 pending a response on a drainage report                                        submitted.