Minutes:
The application before members was for the re-submission of a previously approved application P0183.16 for a single storey rear extension with a pitched roof.
The extension was already under construction and a flank door had been added by the time a site visit had been conducted.
Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Jody Ganly on the grounds that the current construction was in breach of the original planning permission that was granted for the extension. On the original application decision, it stated clearly that no other windows or doors could be added, specifically, to the flank wall and there should be no deviation from the plans. The flank door would affect the neighbour’s privacy, and could also lead to the new extension being used as a separate dwelling.
In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response from the applicant.
The objector commented that the flank door would lead to a loss of privacy to the neighbouring property and an increased footfall and increased noise. The objector also commented that the additional door and extension could lead to the property being used as two separate dwellings.
The applicant commented that he had been advised by officers that the proposal would fall within the adopted guidelines for a householder extension and was not considered un-neighbourly. The applicant also commented that in response to the comment relating to increased footfall that the door had not been used often and that it was not the main access to the property. The applicant concluded by commenting that the extension was of an open planned design and therefore could not be sectioned off and used as a separate dwelling.
With its agreement Councillor Jody Ganly addressed the Committee.
Councillor Ganly commented that the original planning permission had secured the neighbouring property’s privacy by conditioning the permission to not allow windows or doors in the flank wall. Councillor Ganly also commented that the neighbours had concerns that now the extension had an additional door it could be used as two separate properties. Councillor Ganly concluded that the height of the roof of the extension was also in breach of planning conditions.
During the debate Members discussed the possible breach of planning permission and sought and received clarification of the roof height of the extension.
Members also received clarification from the Committee’s Legal Adviser on a possible breach of planning permission and its effect on new planning applications.
A motion was proposed to refuse planning permission but this was lost by 3 votes to 5 with 3 abstentions.
It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.
The vote for the resolution was carried by 6 votes to 2 with 3 abstentions.
Councillors Misir, Best, Crowder, Wallace, Donald and Whitney voted for the resolution to grant planning permission.
Councillors Kelly and Nunn voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.
Councillors Hawthorn, Webb and Williamson abstained from voting.