Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for a single storey side and rear extension.

The Committee noted that proposed chimney feature (8.6 of the Officer’s report) had been withdrawn from the application and thus should be disregarded in the Committee’s determination.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Objected to (a) the impact (and possible precedent an approval might create) on the public realm of the proposed garden infill and (b) the increased height of the garden fence.

    ii.        Current building line is set back from the site boundary and allows sight lines across open areas for other residents.

   iii.        Open views would be lost/restricted by the increased fence height.

  iv.        Scale and massing of the proposal was out of keeping with the area.

   v.        Proposal was out of keeping with the character of the area.

  vi.        Development would harm the street scene.

 vii.        Suggested that the fence height should not exceed 1.8m, the garden should be protected and any extension to match the materials of the original build.

viii.        Some form of control is appropriate which would prevent the loss of more than 50% of the original garden

Mark Richards (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee made the following comments in response to the Officer’s report.

     i.        Sought clarification regarding the position and orientation of the plot.

    ii.        Suggested that the illustrations were confusing and thus difficult to interpret.

Councillor Tunnacliffe proposed a deferral of this application to allow the Officer’s to prepare more detailed illustrations. There was no seconder and therefore the proposal was lost.

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Planning Officer stated the following:

     i.        Confirmed that a matching materials condition had been included – proposed condition 4.

    ii.        All future applications for extensions or changes would each be considered on its own merits.

It response to Members request for some assurance about the fence height, the Assistant Director stated that it was Officers’ opinion that it was irrelevant whether the height of this fence was 2.1 or 2.5 metres. Due to the location of this boundary treatment the difference of 40cm in height for a boundary treatment that is only 7 metres wide would not result in any additional harm. This view was supported by the City Council Urban Design team.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 9 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report subject to the conditions recommended in the Officer’s report.