Agenda item

Variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref: 17990/APP/2015/645 dated 24/04/2015 to permit changes to the basement and fenestration (Part two storey, part first floor rear extension, construction of basement, conversion of garage to habitable use, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 2 rear roof lights, alterations to front elevation and demolition of existing rear element)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref: 17990/APP/2015/645 dated 24/04/2015 to permit changes to the basement and fenestration (Part two storey, part first floor rear extension, construction of basement, conversion of garage to habitable use, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 2 rear roof lights, alterations to front elevation and demolition of existing rear element). Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval

The Head of Planning drew the Committee’s attention to a briefing sheet on the local plan part II. He advised the Committee that the plans before the Committee did not cite policies from the emerging part II local plans. Members were referred to paragraph 216 of the national planning policy framework. The Head of Planning highlighted that reference was made to the word “may”, and talked the Committee through the three key criterias, highlighting that although draft policies had been published and been subject to public consultation, they had not gone through an inspector evaluation process.

A petitioner spoke in objection of the application on behalf of the Gateshilll Residents Association and submitted that the submissions due to be made would be made primarily on the comments in the officer’s report, not the comments on the local plan part II. The petitioner referred to documents that were circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting. The petitioner stated that Senior Council had been putting together the development management policies since 2014. The policies that officers made were sent out for public consultation twice and on neither occasion where any amendments made. The petitions submitted that policies did have weight and covered requirements for developments to harmonise with existing street scenes, complement amenity and character of residential area and to be unobtrusive. These are the existing current policies. The petitioner accepted that permission was granted but submitted that the application differed form the application approved. There were significant changes. In summary, the petitioner requested officers to clarify the full length, full width and additional full width of the basement proposals as it would damage the amenity of neighbours and that the front and side light wells and the removal of conifers as they were all contrary to BE 5/6, 13, 15 and 19. The petitioner asked the Committee to refuse the application.

The agent addressed the Committee and submitted that permission for this development had been lawfully commenced and the proposal for an enlargement for an approved basement together with alterations were highlighted by the officers are relatively minor. It was critical to consider the permission granted on appeal for the replacement dwelling, which included a large basement of a comparable size. The inspector raised no issues with the size of that basement. The agent highlighted that a scheme was put forward last year for another replacement dwelling, with a basement and although Members refused that application it was not on the grounds of basement, they refused it on the basis of above ground works which was the subject of the appeal at the moment. There was no objection from the conservation officer, flood water officer or urban design team.

In response to a Member question, the agent said that the lightwells were in the scheme submitted last year. 

Members considered that the application depended on the clarification on the difference in size between what the applicant was looking to do now compared to what the inspector provided planning permission. Members questioned officers relation to the measures and sought clarification on how different it was. Officers confirmed that they did not have the precise dimensions. It was noted that there was an appeal decision that allowed a basement, then an application was refused but no on the basement grounds. This basement mirrored the basement that the Committee did not previously have an issue with. Officers reiterated that previously, the Committee decided that the basement was considered acceptable. Officers confirmed that it was marginally bigger.

Members required further information as to what marginally bigger meant and they needed more information on the dimensions. Members also questioned that the new policies and the Head of Planning confirmed that there were no strict basement policies.

The meeting was adjourned at 08:55 to allow officers to obtain further information in relation to the dimensions of the basement.

The meeting resumed at 21:15 and additional documents were circulated to Members. Officers double-checked the plan and it was confirmed that the depth of the basement before the Committee was 3.8 deeper and there was a depth of approximately 23 metres as opposed to 20 metres. There was an extra 3 metres difference. Both conservation and flood water officers had no objections to the proposals in any way. The width was the same.

Members submitted cannot accept that change, a marginal 3 metres. Officers worked out a percentage of the total depth and it was conclude to be approximately 12 – 13 percent. Around the 15 percent that it was not marginal.

The Head of Planning commended that there was no reason to refuse the application as there was no strict policy on the basement grounds. Members were concerned as 3.8 metres was not marginal. Members also questioned how many extra light wells the application had.

The Head of Planning said two options approve the officer report or ask for a more comprehensive report. He noted the concerns of members which was no ct in the original report.

For clarity, the Chairman said that the officers indicated that there were no refusal reasons to hold up at appeal. It was clear there there were some concerns regarding the size of the basement and the number of lightwells and the impact on neighbours. Members asked officers to research previous schemes to find out what size the basements were. Officers were also asked to seek clarification to consider whether there were any flooding issues. It was agreed that a more robust report was required to make a proper and informed determination.

A motion was called for the item to be deferred pending further information. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred.