Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Oliver.

Cllr Barrell declared an interest in 19/02213/FUL 1 Bath Mews as the ward Councillor, she had called in the application as a result of concerns from neighbours, however, hadn’t taken a view herself.

Councillor McCloskey – 15 Hartley Close, 1 Bath Mews and 7 Nettleton Road  

Councillor Baker – 15 Hartley Close

Councillor Payne  – 15 Hartley Close, 1 Bath Mews and 7 Nettleton Road  

There were none.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21^st November 2019 were approved and signed as a correct record.

Planning Application Documents

GD introduced the application, he advised that the applicant was seeking permission to demolish the existing attached garage and build a two storey side extension, a single storey rear extension, remodelling and general modernisation works to a two storey link detached dwelling.

Miss Plouffe, neighbour in objection

Speaking on behalf of the residents of Hartley Close who were objecting to the application. She noted that only 4 notices had been sent to residents of Hartley Close concerning the proposal and a number of residents who would be visually impacted  by the development were not formally invited to contribute their reviews.

The main reason for her objection was the fact that the application was in direct contravention to Core Policy 7 (Design) which requires development to be of a high standard of architectural design and to complement and respect neighbouring development. She noted that the council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Alterations and Extensions (2008) emphasised the importance of achieving subservience, and that an extension should not dominate or detract from the original from the original building but play a supporting role. She felt that the side and rear alterations proposed were substantial and the size and height of the proposed two storey side extension which comes forward from the principal house would dominate the property, create an elongated effect and be out of character to neighbouring properties. Plans to fully render the home would also create an overbearing property out of place on the street.

She highlighted that the planning officer report stated that in the NPPF design should not be used as a valid reason to object neighbourhood development. However, noted that the same policy states that design should be developed with local communities,  and therefore requested that the design elements of the proposal and impact should be considered.

She felt that the proposal did not respect the local context and street pattern of Hartley Close, and in particular, the scale and proportions of the surrounding properties. It would create an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the street. She also had concerns about the impact on the sense of ‘openness’ for the street and the precedent this could set for future development.

She noted that the parish council did not submit an objection, however reasoned that this decision was taken without soliciting views from residents.

Whilst she fully respected the desires of the owners or modernise and alter the current property, she felt that this could be accomplished in a different way, minimising the unacceptable impact for others residing on the street.

Miss Davies, agent in support

She highlighted that, as per the officer’s report, the extensions were not of a scale that would result in an overdevelopment of the site and that the proposed scheme represents a high quality design. She further acknowledged that the proposals were in accordance with the relevant local plan policies and guidance contained with the NPPF.

She noted that the objections largely related to the scale of the proposed extensions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning Application Documents

MP: Introduced the application,she explained that the applicant was seeking permission for the provision ofpitched roofs on two semi-detached dwellings. The application was before the committee at the request of Councillor Barrell and Councillor Harman.  

Mr Boyle, neighbour in objection

Was the owner of number 11 Victoria Retreat and was speaking on behalf of all of those residents who would be negatively affected by the scheme. Whilst they understood the new for development they felt the proposal would have a negative impact on a number of its closest neighbours. He reasoned that an upward extension of over 2 metres would raise the building up by 40%, causing overshadowing and loss of light to a number of properties on Victoria Retreat. The Bath Mews properties already dominate the skyline to Victoria Retreat and currently block a substantial amount of sunlight form the properties, even with the 2 storey flat roof design.

He highlighted that a report on the original build acknowledges that there is already a breach of the 25 degree light rule and the new proposal would cause even more loss that would result in up to a 55% loss of daylight to the rear of a number of properties on Victoria Retreat. He stressed that this would disregard normal protections afforded by CP4. He noted that section 118 of the NPPF encourages the support of proposals that use the air space above existing residential and commercial premises for new homes, however, reasoned that as the proposal was not creating new homes it did not fall in to this category. He felt that the height of the extension was oppressive and overbearing in a tightly packed area and would encroach on the privacy of neighbouring residents. The lack of privacy would extend to those on Commercial Street who would be overlooked by windows and a roof top terrace. He also had concerns that this would set a precedent for future development that could lead to an even greater loss of amenity character of the area.

Mr Everit agent in support

He highlighted that an application for an extension was made earlier this year, however, that application was withdrawn following feedback form the local authority that the proposal was potentially overbearing and likely to have a negative impact on some of the adjacent properties. He confirmed that following consultation with the Local Authority, they had revised the scheme so that it was more of a traditional form which would help to reduce its impact on the locality. The proposal now comprised a pitched roof form so it would significantly reduce the amount of shadow cast compared to the flat roofed scheme. The pitch had been kept shallow to keep the ridge height low and due to the elevation of the sun when it is to the south of the site, the shadow cast to the north of the site would be no greater than the shadow cast by the existing parapet wall for the majority of the year.

He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Planning Application Documents

GD: introduced the item, he explained that the application was seeking permission for a single storey rear extension. The application was at committee as the applicant was employed within the Place and Growth Division of the Council. No objections had been received.

MC: Understood that the application was at committee for reasons of transparency  but did not feel that the extension would be intrusive and could see no reason for refusal.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 For

0 Against

0 Abstentions

PERMIT 

Planning Application Documents

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 For

0 Against

0 Abstentions

PERMIT

The Head of Planning advised that there was an urgent exempt item that the committee needed to consider.

Vote on officer recommendation

12 For

0 Against 

0 Abstentions