Decision Maker: Development Panel
Decision status: Refused
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Richard Evans, agent and Dave Bodecott spoke in support of the application.
The report recommended refusal
The Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the item and then went through the main issues as detailed in the report.
Principle of Development
This is considered acceptable in basic terms at a sustainable location within a Key Service Centre.
Overdevelopment of the site with a dominance of access road, parking and turning provision. Back land development not compatible with the existing suburban character and plot ratios.
The intensity of vehicle movements to serve the dwelling in close proximity to adjacent dwellings will have an adverse impact upon residential amenity.
Achievable to sustainable guidelines.
Small scale contemporary dwellings with no significant visual impact in this area.
The Planning and Building Control Manager also explained to the panel, using photographs, the location of the application site and the proposed access, including the demolition of a small garage.
Members noted the representations received in respect of the application, the main grounds of which were set out in the report.
Questions were asked of the officers and speakers and debate followed relating to the location of the development, the dwelling type, density of development and parking. Specific queries to officer focused on the impact of the development on the streetscene, the implications for parking serving the host dwelling, the ability for the host dwelling to increase its parking without needing an application for planning permission and whether conditions could control the retention and enhancement of existing soft landscaping as well as future extensions and alterations to the new dwelling (to safeguard amenity and prevent overdevelopment). The Planning and Building Control Manager confirmed that conditions could be used for these matters.
Councillor Wilkinson moved the motion to approve, as the site does not represent over-development.
This was seconded by Councillor Horsley
A vote was taken on the motion to approve, 4 voted in favour, 6 against and 1 abstention.
The motion was lost
Councillor Armstrong then moved the motion to refuse the application as per officer’s recommendations
This motion was seconded by Councillor Grainger.
A vote was taken on the motion to refuse, 7 voted in favour, 3 against, 1 abstention.
The motion was carried.
Refuse as per officers recommendations.
Report author: Susan Hanley
Publication date: 28/08/2019
Date of decision: 27/08/2019
Decided at meeting: 27/08/2019 - Development Panel