Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
123 17/2050/FUL - 64 Coleridge Road and Land r/o 62 and 60 Coleridge Road PDF 152 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission.
The application
sought approval for the erection of 2no. houses to the rear of site.
First floor side and rear extension to main house. Conversion of house to 1no. 3-bed and 1no. 1-bed
flat.
The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from residents of Coleridge Road
The representations covered the following issues:
i.
The site comprises of a large garden area with very
narrow access via a passage way.
ii.
Properties would have no vehicle access.
iii.
Would be an unacceptable overdevelopment.
iv.
Would dominate neighbours.
v.
Would overshadow neighbours.
vi.
Bin storage and collection arrangements were
unacceptable and would clutter street scape.
vii.
Contravenes 3.10 of the Local Plan.
viii.
Would result in significant loss of amenity and
would have an adverse impact on neighbours.
ix.
Building line too close to existing
properties.
Emily Ceraudo (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application.
Councillor Moore
(Coleridge Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application and
raised the following points:
i.
Family housing would be overlooked.
ii.
No vehicle access would compromise safety in an
emergency.
iii.
Properties could contain as many as twelve
residents and the associated noise would be problematic.
iv.
Impact on already limited parking in the area.
v.
Obscure glazing to bedrooms would be unpleasant for
occupants.
vi.
Light loss to residents of number 62.
vii.
Impact on the amenity of neighbours unacceptable.
viii.
Out of keeping with the area.
ix.
Concerned that officers appear to be unusually
motivated to approve this application.
The Principal Planner strongly refuted the suggestion that officers had
any unusual motivation to seek approval of the application.
Councillor Hipkin stated that he felt the many references in the report
to the amendments of the scheme put Members under pressure to approve the
application.
The Principal Planner confirmed that this detail was included to
demonstrate the journey of the application and the thought processes of the
case officer.
Councillor Thornburrow stated that there was no access to this site and
it was not possible to properly consider this application due to inaccuracies
in the drawings.
Councillor Smart
proposed a motion to defer the application until any inaccuracy of the plans
could be corrected. Councillor Thornburrow seconded the motion.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 8 votes to 1) to deferrer the
application.