Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

None.

The minutes of the meetings held on 28 August and 17 September 2013 were agreed as an accurate record.

None.

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in Part 1 public.

Two storey, 5- bedroom detached dwelling to include habitable roofspace, with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

Recommendation - An appeal against non-determination has been submitted by the applicant. As such the Council no longer has Authority to determine the application.

Two storey, 5- bedroom detached dwelling to include habitable roofspace, with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application was a resubmission of a previous application that was refused earlier in 2013.  Officers informed the Committee that during the course of the application process, the applicant had submitted an appeal on the grounds of non-determination. 

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection of the proposals was invited to address the meeting, however, the Chairman informed the Committee that the lead petitioner had sent an email reiterating the strong opposition from residents of the Copse Wood Estate and had decided not to speak given the content of the report.

The agent raised the following points:

• Had addressed previous concerns raised.
• The proposals would not affect any protected trees.
• Appeal is justified due to the 2 month delay to bring the application to Committee.
• Had liaised with planning officers on the best way forward.
• Hoped the Committee had noted the improvements made to the plans.

Members discussed the item and stated the footprint was larger than others on Copse Wood Estate.  Members discussed the boundary distance with the neighbouring property and agreed the scale and bulk of the building was larger than neighbouring properties.

Members requested that officers review procedures to ensure that applications are not brought to appeal for non determination. 

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the, vote was unanimously agreed.

An appeal against non-determination had been submitted by the applicant. As such the Council no longer had Authority to determine the application.

It was therefore recommended, that the Planning Inspectorate be advised that had an appeal not been submitted the Local Planning Authority would have refused the application for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Resolved – That the application be refused.

Two storey, 6- bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing dwelling. Deferred from the North Planning Committee 25 June 2013.

Recommendation - Refusal

Two storey, 6-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated. 

Officers explained that this item had been deferred from a previous meeting on 25 June 2013.  The applicant had previously stated that other properties within its local proximity had crown roofs which were approved.  Officers visited the site in question and noted that the Walderton application does differ to others within the area.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in support of the proposals was invited to address the meeting.  The following points were raised:

• Planning permission had previously been granted, the only change made was the design of the crown roof.
• The crown roof would be hidden from the street view.
• The street scene would not be changed.
• Other properties in the area had roof lights.
• Oakhurst was not a listed building and has been given permission to demolish and rebuild a property.

Members discussed the application in further detail.  Members concurred with the comments made by the Urban Design and Conservation Officer in the officers’ report.

Members questioned how the bulk and scale had changed when the petitioner had stated otherwise.  Officers informed the Committee that previously application approved was a 4 bedroom property which had now changed to 6 bedrooms, two of which would be situated on the 3^rd floor which was proposed to be the roof.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved - That the application be refused.

Roof extension.

Recommendation - Refusal

Roof extension.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated. 

Officers informed the Committee that the applicant had submitted amended plans detailing dimensions of the pre-existing and existing roof.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved - That the application be refused.