Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: East Hunsbury

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0637 and elaborated thereon.

Mr Farrar, a resident, commented that he objected to the application as not being in keeping with the street scene due to its massing and bulk. He noted that all of the properties in the cul-de-sac were of a similar size and design. The proposed extension would create floor space the equivalent of a one bedroomed dwelling. Mr Farrar noted that a previous similar application had been refused on grounds of its size, massing and effect on visual amenity. This application represented a reduction in surface area of 2.36% in comparison with the previous application; its fundamental size and scale remained. Neighbours were fearful that if approved this application would set a precedent; they also had concerns concerning car parking. In answer to a question Mr Farrar commented that the owner of 32 Rosemoor Drive did not live in the property and that it had been rented but was currently empty.   

Councillor Larratt, as Ward Councillor, queried why the report or Addendum made no reference to an objection from Mr Richard Smart. He stated that he supported Mr Farrar’s comments; he believed that the extension would create an extra 110sq metres of space and was similar to the previous application that had been refused being only 3sq metres smaller. He was not aware of any other extension on the same scale. He stated that the previous planning application had been rightly refused. Councillor Larratt stated that he believed that in the case of the previous application the applicant had sought pre-application advice that had been given by one planning officer but the resulting planning application had been refused under delegated authority by a different planning officer. He believed that in this instance the Planning Officers were trying to redress the situation of the previous application. He was surprised that there had not been a site visit and asked that the Committee either defer consideration for a site visit or that determination be passed to an independent Planning Authority.  

Mr Morton, the Agent, commented that the net additional space created by the extension would be 78sq metres; he believed that neighbours had not taken off the existing space within the garage in coming to their conclusions. He noted that a previous application (in 2005) in addition to that referred to by the previous speakers for a similar proposal had been approved but had lapsed. Mr Morton commented that the bulk of the extension would now be behind the gable and that it would fit in with other buildings in the vicinity. The garage would now be able to be used as a garage rather than as a storage space. He believed that there were no grounds for refusal of the application.

The Head of Planning commented that there was nothing untoward in respect of the previous application that had been refused or this one, each being treated on its merits. The schemes were similar but the critical difference was that by setting the extension back, its bulk and effect on the street scene had been reduced and overcame the previous reason for refusal. He also noted that the tenure of the property was not a planning issue and that an objection had not been received from Mr Smart in respect of the current application. In answer to a question the Head of Planning redisplayed the effect of the application.

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Golby proposed and Councillor Oldham seconded “That consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.”

Upon a vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:   That consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.