Issue - meetings

Demolition of existing northern covered projection, and the construction of a single storey side and rear extension, conversion of garage into habitable accommodation and rear rooflight.

Recommendation: That Planning Permission be granted.

Adam Ralton, Development Management Team Leader provider a brief update that officers received an additional letter of objection questioning the reasons for the recommendation and emphasizing the change this development will cause the character of the area. The letter has been circulated to members of the Committee.

A Parish Councillor spoke against the application.

A Ward Councillor also spoke against the application.

The officer responded to the points raised by explaining that this application doesn't propose to change the driveway, that's a previous proposal, and therefore, that element is not for consideration tonight.

The application contains all the information officers need to assess an application and that is what the recommendation was based on.

With regards to consistency, the officer explained that each application is assessed on its own merits.

The example application that was given was fundamentally different to this application and should not be compared to this application for the reasons previously mentioned, that each application is considered on its own merits.

The Moor Park Conservation Area Guidance has been considered in the application. Its set out in the assessment, as is the reason why officers have ultimately departed from the opinion of the conservation officer’s judgement and formed an alternative judgment.

Councillor Debbie Morris explained to the members of the Committee that properties that are pre 1958 properties, merit extra protection being part of the Moor Park Conservation Area and any development must preserve and enhance in that area.

Councillor Morris referenced the conservation officer’s second response from the report and stressed the importance of less than substantial harm, which still constitutes harm.

Councillor Morris further argued that the roof height is highly visible and flat roofs are recommended not to be incorporated in the conservation area.

Councillor Morris pointed out a discrepancy in the percentage of the frontage that is covered by the width of the dwelling and asked for clarification from the officers.

In terms of the width coverage, the officer confirmed that they measured it from the fairest, even space between the property and none of the objectors have come back and disagreed with those measurements or commented on them.

Members requested clarification on why the officers have come to the conclusion that the property is referenced as set back in the report.

The officer explained that in it is in paragraph 7.1.8 of the report, which says the side extension will be set back from the main front facade with the modest roof.

The officers’ reference is that it is set back from the main front wall, so that gives a little bit more primacy to the two-storey building.

Councillor Debbie Morris moved for refusal, seconded by Councillor Philip Hearn, on the grounds that the proposed development, given its flat roof and design would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 5 For, 1 Against and 2 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10