Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Semilong

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of Application no. N/2011/0403 and noted that the proposal was for a single four bed dwelling and referred to the proposed condition 8 set out in the report to prevent its use as a HIMO to prevent pre-emption of the implementation of the Article 4 Direction in 2012.

Miss Scott, the neighbour, commented that her property was a detached house, approximately 120 years old. She had been surprised by the Jesus Army’s proposals and their description of 1-3 Hester Street as a single house: it had 11 occupants. Building Control had advised her that they would be concerned by the proposed 7.5cm gap between her property and the new build. How would she be able to maintain this wall? She had concerns about the foundations, overlooking and parking. She noted that the Jesus Army had a vast property portfolio and queried why they needed another house as opposed to extending 1-3 Hester Street. She found it odd that the report referred to all these issues but still recommended the application for approval. In answer to questions Miss Scott commented that she had concerns about overlooking through her velux bathroom window and that, in her view, a better alternative would be for the Jesus Army to extend their existing premises.

Mr Veitch, representing the Jesus Fellowship Community Trust, commented that the new build house would not be a single family residence but used as an extension of the facilities at 1-3 Hester Street. It would meet the long term needs of elderly members of their community and would not be used as temporary hostel accommodation. Mr Veitch stated that the property would technically be a HIMO as the residents would be unrelated to each other but would live as a family sharing, cooking, dining and bathroom facilities. The Jesus Army had been present in the area for a long time. In respect of extending 1-3 Hester Street they had felt that it would overbalance the host property and would not fit in with the street scene. In response to questions Mr Veitch commented that he was unable comment on technical aspects of the application or on estates management matters.

The Head of Planning commented that although no parking provision was included in the proposal the existing parking arrangements would be preserved. He confirmed that the application was for a single dwelling house, C3 use, and as such it could be occupied by up to six people but the proposed condition 8 would mean that the property could only be used as a C3 residence. However Mr Veitch was suggesting that use of the property would be as a HIMO, C4 use and as such would be in conflict with the proposed condition 8 to prevent such a use.     

The Committee discussed the application.

The Head of Planning commented that the applicant’s representative had indicated that the premises would be used for communal accommodation although the application had been presented as, and assessed as, a single family accommodation. The application needed to be reassessed against the relevant planning policies in the light of this new information and to discuss these matters with the applicant. She requested that consideration of it be deferred to allow this to happen and for a revised report to be submitted to the Committee.

Councillor Flavell proposed and Councillor Hallam seconded “That consideration of the application be deferred in the light of the new information provided by the applicant’s representative to allow a reassessment of the application, further discussion with the applicant and revised report to be submitted to the Committee.” Upon a vote the motion was carried.

     RESOLVED:   That consideration of the application be deferred in the light of the new information provided by the applicant’s representative to allow a reassessment of the application, further discussion with the applicant and revised report to be submitted to the Committee.