Proposed construction of detached dormer bungalow.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Philpotts, representing Holmer and Shelwick Parish Council, and Mr Neale, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor SJ Robertson, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site visit undertaken the previous day gave Members an opportunity to make a better judgment in respect of the application.

·         The Inspector had previously stated, in respect of a separate application in Belle Bank Avenue, that the properties had a distinctive pattern and were worthy of continuous protection.

·         The approval of the application would result in two extremely cramped properties with issues of overlooking.

·         Amenity space for both properties will be limited with the issue of overlooking also being a key issue.

·         The loss of garden space would also have an adverse effect on biodiversity.

·         In June 2011 PPS3 was amended to exclude garden grabbing.

·         There would be an increase in traffic issues if the application was approved.

Members discussed the application and had concerns in respect of the possible overdevelopment of the site. They noted that the existing garden was going to be reduced by approximately 70% through the proposed dwelling and also noted the close proximity of the new dwelling to the existing one. It was considered that the proposed application would have a negative impact on the neighbouring properties as well as impacting on the distinctive character of the area. It was however noted that there could be a need to support the family and Members considered that an extension to the existing dwelling may be deemed more acceptable.

Members discussed the key policies of the Unitary Development Plan and were of the opinion that the application should be refused as it was contrary to Policies DR1, DR2 and DR3. Reference was also made to PPS3 although the Committee were advised that this should not be referred to as a reason for refusal as it had been replaced by the National Policy Planning Framework.

In discussing the reasons for refusal Members confirmed that the key reasons for refusal related to scale and mass, the impact on the character of the area, and the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. Members were also of the opinion that there were issues relating to sustainability and agreed that policy H13 of the Unitary Development Plan should also be included in the reasons for refusing the application.

Councillor Robertson was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The Parish Council had objected to the application and had expressed the views of the local residents.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its size, scale, design and siting would represent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102