Issue - meetings

The proposal before Members was for the erection of one detached two-storey five-bedroom house and a detached double garage on a rectangular plot of land located to the south of a larger redevelopment site on land associated with the former property at 44 Herbert Road, and now referred to as 9 Fairlawns Close.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor John Glanville on the grounds that the departures which the developer had made from the original application, as approved by the planning Inspector, would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents living at nos. 6 and 7 Channing Close. Councillor Glanville also stated that the house had been moved forward by approximately two metres in order to fit the house into the site, and the south-east corner of the house had been altered to provide a much larger kitchen area.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant’s agent.

The objector commented that the current development had departed from the original planning permission which had stipulated that there should be no departure from the submitted plans. The objector concluded by commenting that the revised layout impacted on neighbours’ amenities.

The applicant did not arrive to respond to the objector’s comments.

With its agreement Councillor John Glanville addressed the Committee.

Councillor Glanville commented on the following two changes to the development; the larger kitchen area to the southeast corner which was of concern to house number 6 and the build of the house two metres forward which was of concern to house 7. Councillor Glanville also commented that the building work had commenced before planning permission was granted and that he was concerned that the visit undertaken by Members had not extended to neighbouring properties to view the impact on the neighbours. It was suggested that the Committee review arrangements so that it future Members would be able to visit neighbouring properties adjoining an application site.

Councillor Glanville noted that the building could not fit on to the site as it had beenmeasured wrongly.

During the debate Members who visited the site were satisfied that the building would not have that much of an impact on neighbouring properties.

A motion to refused planning permission was proposed by Councillor Linda Hawthorn and seconded by Councillor Alex Donald.

The vote for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission was not carried by 4 votes to 6 and one abstention.

Councillors Donald, Hawthorn, Nunn and Rumble voted to refuse planning permission while Councillor Williamson abstained from voting.

It was RESOLVED planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to granting of planning permission was carried by 8 votes to 1 with two abstentions.

Councillor Hawthorn voted against the motion while Councillors Donald and Williamson abstained from voting.