Issue - meetings

Erection of a pair of semi-detached, two-storey over basement two bedroom houses.

(Councillor Sharer arrived during the discussion of the item and therefore did not take part in the vote.)

5.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He referred to the drawing numbers detailed on the front of the report, which should have stated Drawing Numbers 242-01, Rev J, 242-02.

5.2  Ken Rorrison spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  Representing 70 local residents.

§  This was the third application, as the other two had been refused and feels that this scheme was still not satisfactory.

§  Concerned with the siting of the proposed development, as the siting of the previous applications was deemed unsatisfactory.

§  All of the previous applications had historically taken place predominately along the west side of Church Walk and not along the backland sites.

§  Issue of loss of sunlight/daylight.

§  The ceiling heights were inadequate.

§  Identified twelve items where the planning guidance and regulations had been breached.

§  Loss of amenity, due to shadowing.

§  Sets a precedent for future developments.

§  Adversely impact on the amenity of the area.

§  Gross over-development of the area. The proposed development was to dense for the area.

§  The development would not benefit the area as a whole.

5.3  Jaimie Shorten (Barker Shorten Architects) spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  The drawings were accurate.

§  Existing garages were derelict, so felt the proposed development was a positive use of the site.

§  The property would be built to a high standard.

5.4  Councillor Smith referred to the issue of loss of sunlight/daylight, as it stated within the report that the Planning Officer was minded to support the daylight/sunlight, subject to the information submitted by the applicant.  The Planning Officer circulated an additional plan at the meeting which showed the 25 degree angle between the ground floor window of the existing property and the roof of the proposed development, which he deemed to be acceptable.

5.5  In response to a question from Councillor Buitekant regarding what other buildings were located along the same side of the road, the Planning Officer confirmed that this was a pedestrianised section with residential gardens, a one storey studio and derelict garages, as detailed in the application. 

5.6  Reference was made to the concern raised by the objector that this application could set a precedent for future development in the area and have an adverse impact on the amenity of Church Walk.  The Planning Officer reiterated that this side of the road was predominantly gardens and so would be very difficult to develop.

5.7  The architect confirmed that the building would be produced using stock brick, the same as other buildings along the road and dark copper cladding above, which was the same used by the modern house opposite the site.

5.8  Councillor Webb stated that it would have been useful to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5