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 he felt 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 onto 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 Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) stated that no development should be to the detriment of existing residents. The objector also commented that one of the conditions placed on the original planning permission stipulated that there should be no departure from the submitted plans. The objector concluded by commenting that the revised layout impacted on neighbour’s amenity and that a site visit should be undertaken by Members to observe the detriment that would be caused.

In response the applicant’s agent commented that the development had been moved two metres north to avoid a pinch point at the southern end of the site.

The agent also confirmed that the kitchen had been extended by 10m².

With its agreement Councillor John Glanville addressed the Committee.

Councillor Glanville commented that the building works were at an advanced stage and that there was lots of change from what was originally granted planning permission and that there were some discrepancies in measurements.

During the debate Members discussed the possible need for a site visit to see how the changes impacted on neighbouring properties.

It was RESOLVED that consideration of the report be deferred to allow Members to undertake an accompanied site visit.