Agenda item

APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer presented the report which sought approval for the demolition of a swimming pool enclosure and replacement with a single-storey side and rear extension and construction of a rear raised patio, external lift shaft covering the ground and first floors (2 storeys in height) and front entrance canopy, garage conversion with a conservatory extension to create self-contained living accommodation, new vehicular access and gates, and alterations to windows and doors. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained updated comments from Highways, who had objected to the application. One letter of objection was received from a neighbour which raised issues including the impact on residential amenity, loss of landscaping features, that the proposal would not be in keeping with other properties, access concerns, and the noise impact from the plant room. However, officers felt that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable loss of neighbour amenity, a condition was included to require details of a noise assessment be submitted to the Council, and regarding the objection received from Highways, it was explained that the property was located in a quiet area; officers did not that the proposed access would result in unacceptable harm to highway safety, and visible safety displays were required by condition.

Jonathan Collins the agent on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the applicant was looking to provide suitable accommodation for a young individual with complex needs. The positioning of rooms was necessary to facilitate wheelchair access. Regarding suggestions that the development would be out of keeping with other properties, Mr Collins stated that this was not the case; the extensions would enhance the existing building’s appearance and the proposal would not result in any loss of residential amenity. The additional driveway space would assist with vehicle manoeuvring, and a construction management plan would be provided to ensure that the contractor had clear processes to adhere to.

Ken Yarrow, the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He voiced his agreement with the officer report and the recommendation, and asked the Committee to approve the application.

In response to questions to the officer, the Committee heard that Highways had objected to the application due to the guidance in their policies around multiple access points for a single dwelling. However, the officer had visited the property and noted that the road was generally quiet with a 30mph speed limit; he felt that introducing an extra access point would benefit the applicant and would not result in an unacceptable highway impact. It was also confirmed that the ancillary garage conversion could not be divided to create a separate dwelling; this was secured by condition.

·       Councillor Beardsworth proposed and Councillor Russell seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation contained in the report was put to a vote and declared carried with 9 votes for and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.