Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for first floor rear extension to create 2no 2bed apartments.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Canterbury Street (written statement read by Committee Manager):

      i.          Spoke as the owner of 70 Canterbury Street next door to 72 Canterbury Street. House is shown on the Block Plan with boundary filed on the Council’s application website for this application.

     ii.          The space between 72 and 70 Canterbury Street and two windows in Objector’s property would be affected by the proposed development. They were the stair landing window and the ground floor kitchen window.

   iii.          The grounds for objections were:

a.    The proposed extension would block out the light coming onto the landing where the stairs turn, making it dangerous because the stairs are very narrow and need to be very well lit. The space would be enclosed outside the window by the proposed extension.

b.    It would also stop the light coming into the kitchen which was small.

c.    The loss of this light was unsustainable as the Objector would be required to use electric lights during the day forcing them to use more electricity.

   iv.          Asked for this application to be refused until the impact of the proposed extension on Objector’s property had been dealt with.

In response to a query from the Objector, the Senior Planner confirmed there was a typing mistake in section 8.11 on page 81 of the agenda, it should be Canterbury Street and not Canterbury Close

Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation that:

      i.          Condition 8 should be amended so passive provision for electric vehicle charging points could be provided for both parking spaces.

     ii.          A green roof could be provided on the bike shed to encourage biodiversity.

The amendments were noted but not voted on.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to defer the application to allow time for a site visit to check the impact of the proposed extension on light in 70 Canterbury Street property.