Application Number: 21/P3562

Ward: Trinity

RECOMMENDATION GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions

The Development Control Leader (North) presented the report.

The Committee received a verbal representation from two objectors who made points including

·         The application breached policies DMD2 and 3

·         The application plans contained discrepancies and inaccuracies

·         The plans were not clear The proposed works would have an impact on privacy

·          

·         The Objector said the scheme would affect the foot path and would contribute to a loss of amenities. A fence would be required to depict boundaries

·         The scheme will affect loss of sunlight

·         There is poor visual design

·         The application would have a detrimental impact on the Objectors property

·         The scheme is similar to a previously rejected application submitted in the past

·         The height and depth of the scheme had not been altered, which would cause a detrimental impact on the Objectors home

·         It was queried how a previously refused scheme could be brought back with a higher boundary wall

·         This was the fifth application and should therefore be refused.

The Agent to the Applicant spoke in response and made points including:

·         The applicants wanted to create a family home and were not developing to make a profit.

·         The scheme was to accommodate the Applicants growing family

·         The Agent to the Applicant drew members’ attention to two relevant previous planning application decisions; Noting that the 2012 appeal for the planning application had been dismissed.

·         The second application had been granted in September 2021, as the height was only 6.2m on the boundary line. A reduction of 0.3m was acceptable. Members were asked to note that the windows that would have affected the neighbouring property were bricked up

·         The current scheme would be 3.7m deeper and would not have any detrimental impact on the neighbouring property

·         Sunlight daylight assessments had been carried out and neighbouring properties would not be affected

·         Similar schemes had been granted on the same side of the Street.

The Chair announced that representations would only be received by Ward Councillors. Therefore, the statement from Councillor Benbow, would not be read out at the meeting but the written statement would be made available.

Councillor Ormrod made representations to the Committee on behalf of residents of South Park Road, and raised points including:

·         Similar applications submitted were refused, including an appeal.

• A further application had then been approved, with no cap on flat roof ridge, or conditions put on the application and similar to the refused previous application.
• The scheme would have an impact on neighbours’ homes and on surrounding homes on the corner of Wycliffe Road. Councillor Ormrod raised concerns on consideration for neighbours, which this scheme did not and which the DMD2 states should be the case under design.
• The application had failed to meet DMD2 in other areas proposed in the scheme.
• The designs were not in keeping with the surrounding area and the scheme would impact on neighbours lighting and privacy amenities. 
• The proposed scheme was large and overbearing and would be similar to a commercial building.
• Councillor Ormrod requested conditions be placed on the application, should it be granted and would provide some suggested conditions

The Team Leader (North) responded to some of the points clarifying the refusal of previous application/The daylight study took into account both houses on either side of the Applicant with neighbours. The roof was flat in design and similar to other flat roof extension in the area

The Planning Officer responded to councillors’ questions

The Chair moved to the vote on the officer’s recommendation, and it was

RESOLVED:

The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to conditions.