Issue - meetings

Conversion of existing residential premises to create 8 self contained units comprising (7x1 bedroom flats and 1x4 bedroom flat) together with excavation and the erection of a rear extension at lower ground floor below lower ground floor and ground floor levels with lower ground floor balcony: erection of rear and side dormer windows and the provision of cycle stand and bin stores to the front.

5.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda, and explained that it had come committee due to the number of objections received.

5.2  Franco Caramazza spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  Loss of daylight/sunlight and the lower ground floor level will have hardly any daylight, which is the main area of concern.

§  The proposed extension is overbearing.

§  Issue of overlooking from the proposed balcony into number 76 Amhurst Road. 

§  Loss of amenity/garden space.

§  The extension covered the full width of the rear of the property.

§  Issue of town cramming – number of flats being provided in the building.

5.3  Andy Meader (Pegasus Planning Group) spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  The previous scheme had been refused in 2007 due to no family unit being provided and also some issues with the rear extension.  These issues had now been resolved in the revised scheme.

§  A minor amendment to the design of the proposed dormer roof extension to the side elevation had now been submitted.

§  The ground floor extension was only 2.9m deep and therefore was in accordance with building regulations.

§  The lower ground floor level was not visible from the neighbouring property.

§  The balcony referred to by the objector was not intended to be used as a balcony.

5.4  Councillor Smith queried the materials to be used on the roof and asked whether they were providing a green roof.  The agent stated that the materials were to be approved, however, they were happy to consider providing a green roof.  The Chair asked that this be added as an additional condition.  This was AGREED.

5.5  The Chair asked whether the extension to the full width of the rear of the property was in accordance with daylight/sunlight regulations. 

5.6  The Planning Officer explained that the extension was one storey in height and displayed this on the plans.  With regard to daylight/sunlight, he stated that the extension was over 30m away from the nearest property and therefore satisfied the requirement for daylight/sunlight.

RESOLVED that:-

(Councillors Buitekant and Tesler abstained from the vote).

1.  SCB0 – Development in accordance with plans

The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the submitted plans hereby approved and any subsequent approval of details.

REASON: To ensure that the development hereby permitted is carried out in full accordance with the plans hereby approved.

2.  SCB1 – Commencement within three  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5