Apologies were received for the absence of Councillors Philippa Crowder, Carol Smith and John Crowder.

Members are invited to disclose any interest in any of the items on the agenda at this point of the meeting.

Members may still disclose any interest in an item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 February 2024 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

To follow

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 February 2024 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the chairman.

Report attached

The report before Members detailed an application that sought planning permission for the erection of a 1 x two storey, 2-bed, detached dwelling with two car parking spaces and associated works.

The report stated that following concerns that were raised, it was suggested that the car parking layout be revised so as for the number of spaces proposed within the site to be reduced to one and to also replace the soft landscaping proposed directly to the front of the dwelling with hardstanding in order to provide more space for vehicles to manoeuvre within the site.

There were also concerns raised about the amenity impacts of the proposed developments on no. 9 Ferndown, particularly in relation to loss of day and sunlight as the scheme originally proposed a gabled roof. It was noted that the applicant was advised to revise the scheme to feature a hipped roof instead. The report stated that applicant’s agent agreed to both amendments.

In officers view the proposed dwelling would be acceptable from a design standpoint and would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding street scene. The report asked that the Committee grant planning permission subject to suggested planning conditions.

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

A Councillor call-in has been received which accords with the Committee consideration criteria.

The application had been called–in by a Ward Councillor. With its agreement Councillor Laurence Garrard addressed the Committee.

In response to the issues raised by Councillor Garrard, it was clarified that a covenant was not a material planning consideration but was covered under other legal entity in its own respect and covered under other legislation.

Members sought clarification if the application was in keeping with the Emerson Park planning restrictions. Officers confirmed that this was a matter for the judgement of the Committee but that, in Officer’s opinion, the application was policy compliant. 

Members had concern about the length of the drive way that 3 residents will have to share if this application was passed.

Other issues raised by members related to the drainage of excess water from the drive way and the suitability of the driveway to deal with surface water run off Officers clarified that a planning condition was proposed which was considered adequate to deal with this matter.

The condition that members were concerned about and that was subsequently discussed related to the material for hardstanding proposed within the site

Following consideration, it was resolved not to grant planning permission.

The vote for the resolution not to grant planning permission was 2 in favour and 2 votes against. Councillors Whitney and Vincent voted in favour while Councillors O’Sullivan and Stanton voted against.

The application not to grant planning permission was decided on the Chairman’s casting vote.

The Committee debated aspect for refusal of the application in order to move a substantive motion.

Member discussed the following issues:

·       The shared nature of the dropped kerb and access road.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.