The planning application was for a proposed three bedroom detached dwelling at 17 Castor Road, Marholm, with associated driveway.
The main considerations set out in the reports were:
· Principle of residential development
· Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area
· and heritage assets
· Neighbour amenity
· Access, parking and highway implications
· Tree implications
· Developer contributions
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.
The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:
· The application site abutted the conservation area.
· A similar application on this site had recently been presented to Committee and refused as it was considered overbearing and with a loss of outlook.
· The revised proposal currently before the Committee had set the dwelling back within the plot and reduced the second story element by 1 metre, with a ground floor rear extension.
· It was considered that the amendments made addressed only an aspect of the concerns raised. The outlook from the middle window of the neighbouring dwelling remained the same.
· There were no concerns regarding the development’s design and appearance.
Councillor Serluca left the meeting at this point.
Councillor Tim Hawkins, Marholm Parish Council, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· The Parish Council had recently implemented a new programme for dealing with planning applications in the parish, which was explained to the Committee.
· It was advised the general opinion in the village had altered and it was now considered that appropriate render was not so important.
· The Parish Council appreciated that action had been taken to address issues of loss of neighbour amenity.
· It was the general view of the Parish that there was a significant distance between the window of the neighbouring property and wall of the development. As such, the proposal was considered acceptable.
David Shaw, Agent, and Peter Flavill, Architect, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· The applicant had liaised with officers and had brought on board a new architect.
· It had been believed that planning officers and the neighbouring residents were happy with the new proposal, however the situation had now moved on from this.
· It was suggested that if the Committee felt that the dwelling was situated too close to the neighbouring wall, the dwelling could be push 1 metre to the side. This would still be acceptable from a Highways perspective. If Committee were minded, they could defer the determination of the application to consider this.
· The views from the neighbouring property’s windows were affected, but the impact was not thought to be unacceptable.
The Acting Head of Legal Services advised that if the Committee were minded to refuse, the agent has suggested that a deferral be considered. It would be possible for the Committee to defer the application without debate.
The Committee discussed the amendments made to the proposal and suggested that while the outlook of the neighbouring property had been improved, the issues had not been alleviated completely. It was considered by the Committee that the site may be inappropriate for development.
A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.
RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Reasons for the decision
The proposal was unacceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and for the specific reason given below.