Agenda item

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

KS:  hoped that Members would refuse this application.  Recalled the long debate on the last application at this site, and the current proposal had not changed significantly or been discussed with residents.  There is already extant permission at this site, decided purely on the merits of that application, and this one was so similar to the previous refused one, other than it being sunk slightly in the ground, that it seemed as if the applicant was taking the mickey and causing additional anxiety to neighbours.  Asked Members to remember the previous debate.

BF:  said Members had approved the first application, against Officer recommendation, and it had been the originality of the design that swung it, which had been excellent in regard to the shape and size of the plot.  Said the principle that the site could be developed was established, and this design is better than the previous one.  Could not find any planning reason to refuse this proposal.

IRC, in response:

-          said the reason for this application being submitted now was procedural .  The 2012 application had been refused and taken to appeal, but turned away as no Design and Access Statement was provided.  Therefore a further planning application was needed – it was not ‘just for the sake of it’;

-          said the report makes it clear that as far as Officers are concerned, there is already an approved scheme, and although the site is incredibly small, Officers think the current scheme is a better design for this location in Mead Road than the extant permission.

KS:  moved to refuse for the exact same reasons as last time – there was no change with this scheme other than a small drop in the height of the building.

IRC, in response:

-          referred Members to 1.1.3 of the Officer report, which listed the previous refusal reasons.  Said one of the principle reasons had been the reduction of sunlight to the rear of 3 Mead Road, but said this is a difficult one to argue, as although there was undoubtedly some shadowing in the early morning, this was not different from that found in a traditional street on an east-west axis.  Urged Members to look at this in particular;

-          said the object of the application was to progress the matter to appeal, and Officers did not think the current application could justify that.

PT:  asked for confirmation that the applicant wanted a refusal so that he can go to appeal.

IRC, in response:

-          said he wanted approval, or refusal so he can go to appeal, and in order to progress the matter one way or the other, he needs to get a decision.

GB:  said there had been some difficult applications this evening.  Supported KS although realised this was probably a hiding into nothing.  Supported refusal for the same reasons as given previously, as suggested by KS, saying the proposal should not have got permission in the first place.

HM:  said that we are where we are with this application, and the question Members should be asking was whether this application is better than the approved one.

PT:  asked for Officers to give a steer.

IRC, in response:

-          said the recommendation to permit is the steer.  Officers do not consider the plot suitable for development but there is extant permission in place already.  As to whether the current proposal is better or worse than that which has been granted, said Officers considered it better with regard to mass and proximity to No 3 Mead Road, though it still had a dominating effect – adding that the reference to mass should be taken out. 

GB:  asked if taking this out would strengthen the grounds for refusal.

IRC, in response:

-          said taking out removes a weakness.

LG:  said if Members were thinking of refusing the proposal, they would find the answer to some of their problems in the report, at 1.2, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.  If they went against these comments, they would look foolish.

PJ:  if the proposal is permitted, asked that the through-colour render be conditioned for the boundary side.

HM:  asked KS if she wanted to move to refuse with the reference to sunlight taken out.  Said the proposal conflicted with policy CP4, as set out in 1.1.1, which is why it had been refused in the past.  Thought Members should give a consistent message.

PT:  asked about policy CP7 in this respect.

HM:  said Members should look at the refusal reason included in the orange update.

IRC, in response:

-          said CP4 is the correct policy if Members want to refuse – the impact in neighbours, bulk and position of the proposal, though the reference to removal of sunlight needed to be taken out. 

HM:  said the previous refusal reason talked about mass and proximity, and moved to the vote.

Vote taken on KS’s move to refuse on the same grounds as 12/00859/FUL, with the reference to sunlight removed

5 in support

9 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT