Apologies were received from Councillor Khan – Councillor Cook substituted, and Councillor Turner – Councillor Clarkson substituted.

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests they may have in any of the following agenda items. Guidance on this is set out at the end of these agenda pages.

Councillor Clarkson declared a personal interest in agenda item 3 – planning application for 81 Edgeway Road (minute 9 refers) – on the grounds that she had spoken with both objectors and applicants in order to hear as many points of view as possible. She approached this meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Lygo declared a personal interest in agenda item 3 – planning application for 81 Edgeway Road (minute 9 refers) – on the grounds that he was the County Councillor for the area.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report which details a planning application to demolish existing bungalow and garages.  Erection of 1 x 4-bed dwelling (use class C3)

This application was called in by Councillor Hollick, supported by Councillors Williams, Wilkinson, Brett, Goddard, Fooks, Price, Haines, Simmons, Van Nooijen, Canning, Khan, Kennedy and Fry, for the following reasons:

(1)  That overlooking is not material worse than at present, as outline in paragraph 26 of the report;

(2) Based on evidence in the report (including paragraphs 11,12, 27) and information from the applicant regarding physical dimensions of nearby properties, that the height, bulk and massing are not out of keeping with the area.

Officer recommendation: To APPROVE the planning application subject to the following conditions:-

Conditions:

1          Development begun within time limit      

2          Develop in accordance with approved plans    

3          Samples       

4          SUDS            

5          Pedestrian vision splays   

6          Design - no additions to dwelling            

7          Shed/cycle parking

8          Sustainability measures / implementation

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated now appended) which detailed a planning application to demolish the existing bungalow and garages and the erection of 1 x 4-bed dwelling (use class C3).

Murray Hancock (Planning Officer) presented the report to the Committee.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Amanda Jeffries, Mark Arnold and Janet Montgomery spoke against the application, and made the following points:-

·         Concern about overlooking and overshadowing;

·         This was a radical change from a bungalow to a three storey house;

·         Proposal was too big and would impact on neighbour’s privacy;

·         It would affect the view from neighbouring properties, particularly from the rear of those in Ferry Road, and would be overbearing;

·         Proposal was too bulky, too tall and too wide – there was no other house in Edgeway Road or Ferry Road which contained all the features of this one;

·         There would be harm to the neighbourhood;

·         Proposal should be on a bigger plot.

 In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Garry Tan and Katja Ziegler (Applicants) spoke in favour of it and made the following points:-

·         This is an extremely energy efficient home and designed to be so;

·         The height is similar to others in the road – it is not the tallest house in the road;

·         The applicant had liaised with the planners and amended plans more than once in response to their suggestions;

·         The distance between the back of the house and those at the rear exceeds the Council’s guidelines;

·         The back of the house does not project as far back as one neighbouring property;

·         Several properties in Ferry Road have large attic conversions which overlook neighbouring gardens;

·         There are double width properties in Edgeway Road already;

·         The front elevation is not monolithic – elements are set back.

The following additional information was provided by the Planning Officer in response to questions from Councillors:-

·         The existing property was part of the CPZ (controlled parking zone) and therefore eligible for a parking permit, it was expected that the new property would be the same. No comments had been received from the Highways Authority on this matter;

·         The proposed garage could take a normal sized car;

·         The proposed footprint of the new building is larger than the existing, but the plot is double width and has a larger than average garden;

·         The height of the proposed building had been lowered, but it will be difficult to reduce it any further because the roof needed a certain pitch to it (and it was of a prefabricated nature);

·         The height of properties in this road varies a great deal, especially on the side of the road where this application site is situated;

·         A neighbouring property has solar panels on the roof, and a solar impact survey had been carried out. The impact of this building on the neighbouring solar panels was not sufficient (at less than 10%) to justify refusal;

·         The proposed building had a rendered finish and the colour could be conditioned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Minutes of the meeting held on 26^th June 2013 attached

Resolved to confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 26th June 2013

The following dates are scheduled for meetings of this Committee:-

27^th November 2013

23^rd December 2013

Both dates are provisional.

Resolved to note the dates of future meetings as follows (subject to any proposal being called in):-

27^th November 2013

23^rd December 2013