Issue - meetings

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.