Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/18/044

Planning Application - 1no. flat over existing car parking spaces with additional car parking bay created

Planning Application - 1no. flat over existing car parking spaces with additional car parking bay created

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

Bury St Edmunds Town Council objected to the proposal; raising concerns in relation to parking, loss of amenity and overlooking.

As part of his presentation the Senior Planning Officer drew attention to Paragraph 14 of the report and explained that over the course of the application the previously proposed roof lights had been replaced with sun pipes.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 22 of Report No DEV/SE/18/044.

Speakers:    Ms Jenny Curtlin (resident) spoke against the application

Councillor David Nettleton (Ward Member: Risbygate) spoke on the application in order to endorse the consideration of the item by the Committee

Mr Phillip Cobbold (on behalf of the Agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Julia Wakelam (other Risbygate Ward Member) raised a number of concerns in relation to the application relating to:

·         The cramped site which could restrict car movement/parking;

·         The potential impact on neighbouring residential amenity and lack of shadow drawings;

·         Potential difficulties with emergency access; and

·         The materials proposed being out-of-keeping.

A number of other Members echoed these concerns.  Councillor John Burns raised particular issue with the four parking spaces and their relationship with the adjacent staircase access.  He also questioned as to whether four vehicles would actually be able to park in the space provided. 

Councillor Burns therefore proposed that the application be deferred in order to allow for these matters to be investigated, however, this motion did not achieve a seconder.

In response, the Case Officer explained that Suffolk County Council Highways Authority had not objected to the parking provision, access or the relationship with the adjacent staircase.  Furthermore, the materials to be used could be controlled by way of a condition.

Councillor Peter Stevens stressed the importance of focussing on material planning considerations and moved that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Terry Clements.

However, upon being put to the vote and with 4 voting for and 8 against, the motion was lost.

Councillor David Nettleton then proposed that the application be refused as contrary to the relevant policies of the development plan pertaining to the following reasons:

1.   The cramped and contrived overdevelopment of the site;

2.   The dominant and unneighbourly impact of the development; and

3.   The design being incongruous and out-of-keeping with the surrounding area.

This was duly seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) confirmed that the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked in this case and that a risk assessment was not considered necessary by Officers.

Therefore, upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion, 2 against and with 2 abstentions, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF REFUSAL as contrary to the relevant policies of the development plan pertaining to the following reasons:

1.   The cramped and contrived overdevelopment of the site;

2.   The dominant and unneighbourly impact of the development; and

3.   The design being incongruous and out-of-keeping with the surrounding area.

(On conclusion of this item, and Part A of the agenda, the Chairman permitted an interval before proceeding with Part B of the agenda at 1pm.)