Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/17/037

Planning Application - (i) 1no new dwelling with extension to existing access drive and (ii) Single storey side extension to No.65 Horsecroft Road and remaining works to new drive entrance

Planning Application - (i) 1no new dwelling with extension to existing access drive and (ii) Single storey side extension to No.65 Horsecroft Road and remaining works to new drive entrance

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee in order to ensure full openness of the application process and in light of the interest in the proposal.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Bury St Edmunds Town Council had withdrawn an earlier objection in relation to the application, however, representations had been received from neighbouring properties.

Officers were recommending that the application be refused, for the reason set out in Paragraph 7 of the ‘late papers’ which were circulated after the agenda had been published.

As part of his presentation the Planning Officer made reference to:

·         The ‘late papers’ which contained an amendment to the wording of refusal reason 1 and explained the reasoning for removing refusal reason 2 (as a result of the applicant since proposing the repositioning of the existing fence a further 900mm back from its current position and to plant an evergreen Laurel hedge in front, fronting Horsecroft Road);

·         An email that had been circulated to the Committee from the applicant which queried the Site Area (sqm) figures set out in the late papers within a table in Paragraph 5.  The Officer confirmed that some of the figures in the late papers had unfortunately been included inaccurately and advised the Committee of the correct calculations.

The Case Officer spoke on the history of the site and related planning applications.

Attention was also drawn within the presentation to nearby residences which had been subject to similar ‘infill’ planning applications.  The Officer explained that the site area and curtilage of the proposed dwellings within the application would be somewhat smaller than the others shown, which reinforced the Officer’s concerns regarding the proposed impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

Speakers:    Elizabeth Maine (neighbour) spoke against the application

Councillor Richard Rout (Ward Member: Westgate) spoke against the application

Trevor Grange (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor David Nettleton proposed that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation and for the reason set out in the ‘late papers’, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

Upon being put to the vote and with 3 voting for the motion, 9 against and with 1 abstention the Chairman declared the motion lost.

Following further discussion on the application by the Committee, Councillor Terry Clements proposed that the application be deferred in light of Members’ concerns, to enable Officers to work with the applicant to seek improvements to the scheme where possible.  This was duly seconded by Councillor David Nettleton.

Upon being put to the vote and with 3 voting for the motion, 9 against and with 1 abstention the Chairman declared the motion lost.

Councillor Carol Bull then proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Susan Glossop.

The Lawyer then interjected and explained that in making the proposal for approval Members needed to give reasons as to why they were going against the Officer’s recommendation.

Following deliberation and after receiving Officers’ advice, Councillors Bull and Glossop determined the following reasons:

·         Refusal reason 2 had been removed as no longer relevant, leaving just one reason in the Officer’s recommendation;

·         The impact on visual amenity was not as severe as originally thought, particularly given the reduction in height; and

·         The plot sizes concerned were considered adequate.

The Case Officer then read out draft conditions which could be used if Members were minded to approve the application:

1.   Standard time limit

2.   Samples of materials

3.   Access material details

4.   Parking and manoeuvring details

5.   Tree protection measures

6.   Removal of permitted development rights

7.   Details of boundary/screening treatment

8.   Details of landscaping scheme

9.   In accordance with approved plans

Councillor Glossop asked if the existing Leylandii trees could be conditioned in any way, however, the Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory Services) advised against this specific condition as there were legal rights under antisocial behaviour legislation which can control the height of such hedges.  A screening condition to be agreed with Officers was therefore recommended.

The Chairman then put the motion for approval to the vote, with 9 voting for, 3 against and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED, contrary to the Officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

·         Refusal reason 2 had been removed as no longer relevant, leaving just one reason in the Officer’s recommendation;

·         The impact on visual amenity was not as severe as originally thought, particularly given the reduction in height; and

·         The plot sizes concerned were considered adequate.

And subject to the following conditions:

1.   Standard time limit

2.   Samples of materials

3.   Access material details

4.   Parking and manoeuvring details

5.   Tree protection measures

6.   Removal of permitted development rights

7.   Details of boundary/screening treatment

8.   Details of landscaping scheme

9.   In accordance with approved plans