Agenda item

The South Area Principal Planner presented the report and outlined the reasons for approval as detailed in the report.  There was a correction to Para. 44 where the height was referred to twice where it was actually relating to width.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme.

•         Mrs Colebrook

•         Nick Marriott

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The following points were discussed:

•         Whether the proposal was deemed as overbearing was assessed, considering the impact on neighbours with regards to scale, distance, mass and form of development.

•         The use of the dwelling was residential. Lawful use of a dwelling includes holiday occupancy.

•         The requirement to demonstrate a need for an extension was not required with an open market residential use.

•         A previous proposal had been refused at Planning Committee.  The refusal went to Appeal which was dismissed due to impact on neighbouring properties.  Some Members expressed the view that the current proposal did not fully address those potential impacts, but the concerns weren’t sufficient to justify refusal.  The current proposal would be judged on its own merit.

•         The design of the garage doors had horizontal slatted panels.  The preference would be for vertical panelling.

A motion to approve the application, subject to the garage detail being conditioned, was proposed and seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

RECOMMENDATION:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.      Standard 3-year time limit.

2.      Compliance with amended plans and details.

3.      Design details & materials.

4.      Garage to remain for garaging of private domestic vehicles only.

5.      Workshop/store to remain ancillary to use of the dwelling.