Issue - meetings

Permission in Principle application for two semi-detached pairs of 4 x 3 bed dwellings with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of two existing detached bungalows.

Description:

Permission in Principle application for two semi-detached pairs of 4 x 3-bed dwellings with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of two existing detached bungalows.

Officer Recommendation:

Approval, subject to guidance.

Officer Presentation:

The Committee received a presentation on the application from the Planning Development and Enforcement Manager.

Public Speaking:

A member of the public spoke in objection to the application.

The Councillor who called-in the application spoke on the application.

Decision:

Following consideration, Councillor Chris Watson proposed a motion that the Officer recommendation be amended by way of additional guidance, as follows:

The development should take cues from the architectural character of the other dwellings in the street including bay windows and fenestration.

Councillor Jan Mason seconded the proposal.

Subsequently, the Committee voted (5 for, 1 against, 2 abstaining, and the Chair not voting) in favour of the motion.

Following further consideration, Councillor Neil Dallen proposed a motion that the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee to allow time for a Member site visit to be conducted. The proposal did not receive a seconder and consequently the motion was lost.

Following further consideration, Councillor Julian Freeman proposed a motion to approve the Officer recommendation, subject to the agreed amendment. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Kate Chinn.

Subsequently, the Committee voted (4 for, 4 against, the Chair not voting initially, and proceeding to exercise his casting vote against the motion) against the motion, and the motion was lost.

Following further consideration, Councillor Phil Neale proposed a motion to refuse the application for the following reason:

            Excessive Density for the Site

The proposed development would not maintain the visual character and appearance of the wider townscape. contrary to Policy DM11 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Neil Dallen.

Subsequently, the Committee resolved (4 for, 3 against, 1 abstaining, and the Chair not voting) to:

REFUSE the application, for the following reason:

Excessive Density for the Site

The proposed development would not maintain the visual character and appearance of the wider townscape, contrary to Policy DM11 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.