Minutes:
The reports before Members detailed applications for a proposed garage conversion, a proposed conservatory at the rear of the property with part rear extension and conversion of an existing outbuilding to a granny annexe.
Members noted that all three applications had been called-in by Councillor Damian White on the grounds that the proposals raised concerns in regards to their impact upon neighbouring amenity and also their combined level of development.
In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant.
The objector commented that that he was representing the neighbouring properties who were objecting to the garage conversion as they believed the applicant was planning on operating the proposed development on a commercial basis. The objector also commented that the conservatory along with other previous extensions would lead to a gross overdevelopment of the property and a loss of visual amenity and privacy to neighbouring properties. The objector concluded by commenting that the proposed granny annexe was a further overdevelopment of the site that would also lead to a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.
In response the applicant’s agent commented that there was little uniformity in the road and that his client had no intention of using the premises for commercial use. The agent also commented that the proposed conservatory had been reduced so as not to affect the privacy of the neighbouring properties. The agent concluded by commenting that the granny annexe was for the provision of care to an elderly relative and would also not be used for commercial activity.
During the debate Members discussed all three of the proposals and their impact on the amenity and privacy on the neighbouring properties. Members also sought and received clarification of the existing streetscene and of permitted development rights.
Although all three applications were considered together they were voted on separately.
P0643.16 – It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.
The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions.
Councillors Wallace and White abstained from voting.
P0644.16 – The report recommended planning permission be granted however subject to a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the conservatory, by reason of its depth of penetration into the rear garden seen in relationship to the impact of the existing large annex outbuilding, would overdevelop the site with built form harmful to its open rear garden character which would be out of keeping with the surroundings.
The vote for the refusal of planning permission was carried by 7 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions.
Councillors Best, Wallace, Ganly, Whitney, Hawthorn, Martin and Williamson voted for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.
Councillor Misir voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.
Councillors Kelly, White and Donald abstained from voting.
P0645.16 it was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.