Issue - meetings

The application was for the construction of a part single, part two storey front and side extensions.  The application had been called in by three members of the Planning Committee due to concerns over the size of the extension and lack of parking.

It was confirmed that amenity space standards were 63sqm for a two bedroom property and 84square metres for a three bed roomed property. If approved there would be an approximate shortfall in amenity space of 19square metres.  The Committee expressed concern that whilst the property would remain as a two bedroomed property the design could lend itself to conversion to a three bedroomed property.  In addition, it was felt that the proposed development would lead to over-development of the plot and the design would leave the property looking out of character with the surrounding area, because it would be a prominent two storey building.  It was noted that there was limited onsite parking in the vicinity of the property and there were parking problems in the area including turning heads due to demand and the development could place further pressures on parking provision.

Councillor Debbie Morris, proposed that the application be refused for reasons that it would lead to a cramped, over developed site that had a potential shortfall in amenity space and parking provision.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Matthew Bedford, put to the vote and carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that Planning Application 23/1372/FUL be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation.

NOTE - Wording of Reason for Refusal 

The proposed development by reason of its height, width, depth, proximity to the boundary and siting at the end of the cul-de-sac would appear as a cramped and overly prominent overdevelopment of the site, exacerbated by the potential shortfall in amenity space, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).

The proposed development has the potential to result in an increased shortfall of parking provision to serve the dwelling which would be likely to result in an increase in parking outside of the application site to the detriment of the safe movement and free flow of other highway users. The development is therefore contrary to Policies CP1, CP10 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policies DM1, DM13 and Appendices 2 and 5 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).