Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing house and replacement with two new dwellings (1 one-bedroom house and 1 two-bedroom house).

The Planning Officer referred to further letters of objection. Details of the properties and a summary of the objections was contained in the amendment sheet.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident on behalf of themselves and a neighbour.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          This was the third planning application on this site.

     ii.          Overlooking into rear garden was cited as a reason to reject an earlier planning application in respect of the property.

   iii.          Impact on the amenity of the neighbour’s garden.

   iv.          Obscure glass was not sufficient to prevent overlooking.

    v.          The developer had not meaningfully consulted with neighbouring residents.

   vi.          Net loss of 2 parking spaces, which would add pressure to on-street parking where 100% of spaces were occupied overnight.

 vii.          Overdevelopment of the site.

viii.          The development did not meet the Lifetime Homes requirement.

   ix.          The development would remove a 3 bed house and replace it with a 2 bed house and a 1 bed unit.

    x.          Disagreed with the case officer’s summary report, it did not accurately reflect the significant overlooking of the Objector’s house.

Dan Brown (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Dalzell (West Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                 Residents had raised concerns with him.

ii.               Noted the Applicant’s comments and acknowledged that he had attended a resident’s meeting and wanted him to continue to work pro-actively.

iii.             Overlooking.

iv.             Overdevelopment of the site.

v.              Referred to unit 2, which included a fourth level as a basement, noting that no planning use had been specified for it.

vi.             Referred to paragraph 8.6 of the Officer’s report which dealt with space standards.

vii.           Commented that unit 2 could be advertised and sold as a 2 bed property, whilst permission would be for a 1 bed property.

viii.         Noted there was no ensuite in unit 2, which might be expected in a 1 bed property, but instead the bathroom and toilet are shown separate. 

The Committee:

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.