Agenda item

Demolition of existing property and the erection of a two storey, with rooms in roofspace, six bedroom detached dwelling.

Deferred from North Committee 20/12/2011

Recommendation: Approval

Demolition of existing property and the erection of a two storey, with rooms in roofspace, six bedroom detached dwelling.

This application was deferred at the North Planning Committee of the 20th December 2011 for a site visit. Members visited the site on the 24th January 2012.

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a 6 bedroom detached house. The proposed house, would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers and would not harm the amenities of nearby residents. With the proposed amendments, it was considered that the development would relate satisfactorily with the character and appearance of other houses in the street, the street scene and surrounding area generally.

A new petition, objecting to the application, with 23 signatures had been received. Concerns had been raised by adjoining residents relating to the accuracy of the plans and in particular the distance the new property would extend beyond the rear of the current building, which on the plans is shown to align with the rear of No.37 at a distance of 5.105m; and the discrepancy in the report between paragraph 3 and paragraph 5.

Officers had been to the site twice and measured this distance, there was a discrepancy of around 100mm. Paragraph 3 was correct. With regard to paragraph 5 this particular sentence was referring to No.41 and should say ‘house’ as opposed to ‘houses’.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Mr Jerry Hughes spoke on behaviour of the petitioners:

·           Mr Hughes stated that the plans shown in the report did not reflect the application adequately. He felt there were discrepancies in the accuracy of the plans.

·           The figures that were stated in the plans gave the planners the option to go further with the extension and closer into the neighbouring properties.

·           The petitioner stated that the shadow plans shown were significantly different to what the current building at no.37 was currently like; the plans reflected what it was like in 1991.

·           Petitioners did wish that no.39 be developed as it was an eyesore but would like it to be developed legally.

·           Mr Hughes stressed that he felt the plans shown were incorrect.

The agent was not present.

A Ward Councillor was present and addressed Committee:

·           The Ward Councillor stated that if the plans in the report were not correct than the information before Committee was inaccurate. Therefore the Committee would not be in a place where they could make a decision on the application before them.

The Council’s Legal Officer confirmed that if the Committee made a decision on the application at the meeting then it would be on the plans submitted to them.

Officers confirmed that the addendum contained new plans and the discrepancy was very small. It was confirmed, again, that officers had been out twice to measure to site. It was also confirmed by officers that the overshadowing diagram was correct.

Members discussed the application and stated that the issues regarding the application was around the size and measurements. Members were happy that officers had the correct measurements.

Members stated that when the carried out the site visit it was looked at in detail and they felt the development would be an asset to the street scene.

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

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda.