Agenda item

Lauren Edwards, Senior Planning Officer provided the following update.

                 Following the submission of the original plans, the positioning of the neighbouring properties annotated on the first floor plan originally received was incorrect. The agent has updated this and provided revised plans.

                 The 45 degree splay aligns on the updated drawing still confirmed that there will be no intrusion, when taken from the point on the boundary level with the rear elevation.

                 At 7.2.4 of the committee report, it states that there will be no intrusion from the point on the boundary level with the two storey rear elevation of the neighbour at number 65. However, the altered block plan shows that there would be an intrusion from the point level with the two storey rear elevation, but no intrusion from the ground floor level, which is where appendix 2 sets out that this should be taken from. As such, it is maintained that there is no impact on neighbours as set out in the report. The measurements quoted in this respect, relating to the single storey element are unchanged, but C2 would need to be updated to reflect the change in the plan numbers.

                 Mrs. Fox-Rushmead spoke against the application on behalf of immediate neighbours.

                 Mr. Bhudia spoke in support of the application.

                 The case officer provided clarification to the Committee on flood risk and surface water, explaining that there is a distinction between the two. The property is in flood risk zone one, therefore it has a low level risk of flooding and is also in a low risk area for surface water drainage, and there is no statutory requirement for this type of application for full risk assessment.

                 The officer further explained that there are no alterations to the frontage proposed, therefore officers wouldn’t be able to try and remedy any pre-existing issues. There is substantial amount of soft landscaping to be retained, therefore, it isn’t reasonable to require the applicant to make any additional mitigation measures. Furthermore, in the officer’s view the proposal would not exacerbate existing levels of surface water drainage, particularly owing to its site within a low risk zone.

                 In response to a question regarding a potential informative being added and a suggestion on withdrawing permitted development rights, the case officer advised that the applicant would be removing their own ability to build any further extension and would be quite limited as to what additional builds they could do. The officer also advised that she would not recommend removing outbuildings but if that is what Members felt that was absolutely necessary, it could be added.

                 The case officer responded to a suggestion for a restriction to be added to prevent any further changes to the roofline, advising the Committee that class B could be removed.

                 Councillor Harry Davies moved, seconded by Councillor Sara Bedford, that Planning Permission be granted with the additional condition removing Class B permitted development rights and additional informative regarding surface water run-off.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 6 For, 1 Against and 2 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

                 That Planning Permission be granted with the additional condition removing Class B permitted development rights and additional informative regarding surface water runoff.

The additional informative to read:

The applicant is encouraged to make additional provisions, where possible, to increase the site's capacity for the interception of surface water run-off.