There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 June 2020 are agreed as an accurate record.

The Chair will announce the order of Items at the beginning of the Meeting.

A Supplementary Agenda with any modifications will be published on the day of the meeting.

Note: there is no written report for this item

There were no modifications to the planning applications published and the applications were considered in the order in which they appeared in the agenda.

Application Number: 20/P0795      Ward: Dundonald

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to S106 obligation or any other enabling agreement and conditions

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 20/P0795 be GRANTED subject to S106 obligation or any other enabling agreement and conditions.

Proposal: Erection of single storey rear extension, rear roof extension with insertion of 2x rooflights to the front slope, and the conversion of single dwellinghouse into 2x1b self-contained units.

The Committee noted the report and presentation of the Planning officer.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Control Team Leader (North) advised that

·         Although the scheme was identical to a previous application, the supplementary planning guidance in operation at the time of the previous application was no longer in operation and therefore could not be replied upon in this case.

·         The application to demolish the adjacent garages did not come to committee for consideration due to the limited objections received.  There was no side access due to the proximity to the scheme next door and therefore no outdoor amenity space had been included.  It would be difficult to include balcony space due to overlooking of neighbouring properties.  It was acknowledged that there was a shortfall, but officers were of the view that it was not enough to justify a refusal in this case.

In response to a Member question, the Transport Planning Officer advised that one parking permit would be allocated per dwelling.

At the invitation of the Chair, Members made the following comments:

·         It was felt that small family homes in the area should be protected to ensure local people who could not afford million pound properties to stay in the area.  There should be a focus on building homes which were fair for the people who would be living there.

·         There was concern over residents living in a property with no outdoor amenity space in the event of another lockdown.  Although it was felt that a refusal would not be upheld, the loss of small family sized accommodation would be regretted.

·         Clarification was sought on the nearest outdoor public space and it was noted that it was a significant walking distance.

·         Members had sympathy for the loss of smaller family homes in the borough, as a number had been lost in other parts of the borough.

A proposal to refuse the application on the grounds of the loss of outdoor space and family homes was seconded.  The Chair put the proposal to the vote and it was lost.

The Chair then put the officer recommendation to the vote, as set out in the report and it was

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 20/P0795 be GRANTED subject to S106 obligation or any other enabling agreement and conditions.

Application Number: 20/P0087      Ward: Figges Marsh

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to S106 obligation or any other enabling agreement and conditions

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 20/P0087 be GRANTED subject to S106 obligation of any other enabling agreement and conditions.

Proposal: Creation of 5 x self-contained flats, involving the erection of a 2 storey (plus roof) side extension, a part single, part 2 storey rear extension and rear roof extensions. sub-division of rear garden and the creation of new refuse and cycle parking facilities.

The Committee noted the report and presentation of the Planning officer.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Control Team Leader (South) advised that

·         It was acknowledged that the census data quoted in the report was now 9 years old, however it was the most up to date accurate and reliable national data on population and housing types.

·         The cycle storage would be located at the back of the site, through a security gate which was preferable to having it located at the front of the property.

·         Officers were satisfied with the survey carried out and that the plans were an accurate representation of the new planting beds and the provision of adequate space for refuse bins and access to the rear communal space.

·         The gap that would remain between the proposed building and the adjacent property was reasonably and the dimensions fit into the streetscene without crowding out the neighbouring properties.

At the conclusion of the debate the Chair called for a vote on the officer recommendation and it was

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 20/P0087 be GRANTED subject to S106 obligation of any other enabling agreement and conditions.