Agenda item

The Planning officer reported that the drawings submitted as part of this application were identical to the drawings that were submitted and approved as part of planning application reference 18/1680/FUL which is set out in the officer report.  The reason the application had been submitted was because there was a question over whether the 2018 permission was implemented in time because whilst work started on it, as the applicant had explained, the works undertaken were not in accordance with those drawings.  For the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure that there is planning permission in place for the works which are being undertaken this application had been submitted.  The house would be identical to the 2018 permission and plans and what the Committee were looking at was identical to the 2018 permission granted.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor David Tobin spoke to advise that the previous objections and concerns put forward for application 22/0394/FUL stand for this application as well.

Councillor Chris Mitchell said in 2018 when the application was passed the Neighbourhood Plan was not in existence but is now and wondered how relevant that was.  The Councillor raised concerns on bulk, design and impact on the streetscene, the ridge height, loss of light to neighbours and privacy and asked whether the Neighbourhood Plan was now applicable as it wasn’t in existence in 2018.

The Planning Officer advised that in respect of the Neighbourhood Plan comment it was not in place in 2018 but is now.  The report addressed that at points 7.7.6 and 7.7.7 essentially saying that the Neighbourhood Plan is now in effect and an assessment had been made against the plan and concluded compliance and an acceptable form of development.

Councillor Chris Lloyd said the Parish Council had commented on the previous application and wondered if this could be summarised.  The Chair advised that the points made were those provided in the report.

Councillor Philip Hearn said it was very important to take into account the Neighbourhood Plan but the Councillor did not see what was in contravention of it and therefore moved that Planning Permission be Granted as set out in the officer report. 

This was seconded by Councillor Matthew Bedford who advised that even more so with this application they were struggling to see any grounds to refuse it.  If you look at the elevations it was very difficult to say it was not in keeping with the houses on either side.  You could see it was slightly wider but that was not uncommon in the streetscene.  There was still adequate spacing between the houses. 

Councillor Chris Lloyd said this had been a long standing issue which had impacted on the neighbours.  No matter what the additional ridge height is you are going uphill so for No.21 it is a bigger issue than No.25.

The Planning Officer advised that the ridge increase was 0.3 metres so from 7.8 metres to 8.1 metres. 

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 7 For, 0 Against and 4 Abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That Retrospective Planning Permission be GRANTED in accordance with the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.