Agenda item

Two storey, 2-bed, detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space, installation of vehicular crossover and cycle store.

Recommendation : That had an appeal not been received the application would have been approved subject to conditions.

Two storey, 2-bed, detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space, installation of vehicular crossover and cycle store.

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

The application sought planning permission to erect a detached dwelling on land to the rear of Nos. 57, 59 and 59a Exmouth Road, with a frontage onto Shaldon Drive, with associated parking and amenity space.

Members noted that the proposals would accord with the terms and objectives of the identified policies and the impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers was also considered acceptable.

The Inspectors comments on a recent appeal scheme for a similar development in respect of highways and parking matters was noted by Members. In the absence of strong highways grounds for resisting a new dwelling in this location, given the minimal additional impact on the capacity for on-street parking in the locality, a highways reason for refusal was not therefore considered sustainable.

An appeal against non-determination of this application had now been lodged and therefore it was recommended that Members resolve that planning permission for the proposed development would have been granted if the Council were in a position to determine the application.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting the proposals addressed the meeting.

The petitioner objecting to the proposals made the following points:

·         The officers' final report contained a number of inaccuracies.

·         Petitioners' were concerned with statements made.

·         The pavement was not used for parking.

·         The highway officer had suggested only one parking space would be lost, which was not the case.

·         The proposals were blatant garden grabbing.

·         The proposals would be in close proximity of the petitioners' property.

·         The applicants photos had been taken during the day, not the evening, and therefore did not give a true reflection of the parking situation.

·         The demolition of the garage would result in the loss of 4 parking spaces.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

·         The recent appeal was relevant and comprehensive.

·         The Council had refused permission on a number of issues that the planning inspector had considered in great detail.

·         There was a WC located downstairs.

·         A window had been removed to prevent overlooking.

·         The planning inspector had stated that highways were not a reason alone to dismiss the appeal.

·         After the appeal had been lodged the applicant had to wait for highways issues to be considered.

A local Ward Councillor also spoke in objection to the proposals and made the following comments:

·         There would be loss of parking spaces.

·         The proposal would be detrimental to the street scene.

·         There would be lack of amenity space.

·         The proposal was close to the corner.

·         The proposals were blatant garden grabbing.

The Council's highway officer informed Members that there were 2 parking spaces per house which the proposed dwelling would provide.  A parking stress survey had been undertaken in the area.  Officers informed Members that the proposal would be hard to defend at appeal on highway grounds.  Officers clarified that overlooking could not be justified as a reason for refusal; there were no habitable rooms and no windows on the side elevation.

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

Resolved - That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report and addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.