Agenda item

Two storey side extension, two storey /first floor infill rear extensions and subdivision into 2 self-contained family dwellings.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation

Two storey side extension, two storey /first floor infill rear extensions and subdivision into 2 self-contained family dwellings.

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval. An additional condition in relation to the reinstatement of the footway at the redundant access onto Mount Pleasant was put forward by officers. It was also highlighted that the report contained a condition in relation to prohibiting the use of the proposed dwellings as an HMO without planning permission.

By way of written submission, a petitioner in objection of the proposed development addressed the Committee on behalf of 38 petitioners and 10 individual households. A background of the site was provided and it was noted that extensions proposed as part of this development had previous planning permission. It was explained that consent granted in April 2021 ignored a number of important factors and the majority of the petitioners were not consulted about the application. It was submitted that the proposed development was not in keeping with the street scene, the conversion to a pair of semis would entail a permanent loss of character and identity for what has been a landmark house in the area since the 1930s. There was likely to be an increase in cars causing increased congestion and concerns about public safety. The Committee was requested to refuse consent for the conversion to a pair of semis and if legislation permitted, also consider revoking the previous consent for the large extensions.

The applicant addressed the Committee, and it was noted that the property was located at an angle to its immediate neighbours. The house had a wide frontage and sat on a generous plot. A previous application had been granted planning permission, however this application used the footprint and height as permitted by that previous consent to create one pair of semidetached house. The building could be subdivided easily with little impact on the street scene and neighbours. The concerns regarding the scale and character were noted however the development used the same footprint, height and volume previously consented by the Council in 2021. It was confirmed that there was no intention to convert the property to an HMO and there were no objections from highways. The proposal complied with housing standards and provided generous amenity space and comfortable accommodation.  The Committee was asked to approve the application as per officer’s recommendation.

Although there appeared to be a fair quantum of development on this site, it was noted that the development complied with policies, created an additional family home and was acceptable in visual terms.

The Committee considered that this was a good application that provided an additional family unit. There was also adequate parking and no detriment on the street scene. Members welcomed the condition in respect of the prohibition of conversion to a HMO.

The Legal Adviser requested reasoning to be provided for the highway condition and the approved reasons would follow in writing.

Subject to the additional condition in respect of the footway in the interests of highways safety, the officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation subject to the addition of the condition reinstating the public footway.