Minutes:
Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.
The Committee heard representations objecting to the application from two residents. Some of the points raised included: allegations that actions had been taken to try and dissuade residents from speaking against the application at the Committee meeting; the use of the flat roof as terrace ; the design was not sympathetic to the street scene and roof lines would be altered within the conservation area which was contrary to policy.
The Committee heard a representations from the Applicant and one resident in support of the scheme. Some of the points raised included: the scheme has a high quality design which would improve the look of the existing building. It was alleged that a campaign of misinformation had been waged against the development to increase opposition to the scheme. There had been no objection from the Applicant’s direct neighbour who would be most affected by the proposal.
The Chair stated that the Committee were disappointed to learn about allegations of anonymous letters and smear campaigns in the planning process which the Council condemned and denounced.
Councillor Guy Vincent spoke as a ward Councillor on the proposal. The points he made were: Ward councillors had been working closely with officers and the applicant to try and address some the concerns which had been raised at public meeting. He confirmed that the development of the flat roof was prohibited by condition and the main concern regarding the views from the cemetery was partly addressed by Condition 21 in the addendum. He suggested that at the end of the first sentence of Condition 21, the following might be added:
“Which shall include details of a boundary fence, hedge, wall that conceals the extension from the view of users of Margavine cemetery other than to allow a view from the inside of the widows of the extension”
The amendment to condition 21 as suggested by Cllr Vincent was proposed by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Aherne and was agreed by Committee.
The Committee discussed the design of the proposal and impact of it on neighbours at length and the repeated planning applications which had been made for a 5 m basement. The legal officer confirmed that only way the basement could be controlled would be by the use of a legal agreement to curtail its development. Councillor Karmel proposed that should the application be granted, that it be subject for a legal agreement to negotiate between officers and the applicant regarding the basement. This was seconded by Councillor Ivimy and agreed by Committee.
The Committee voted on application 2017/02174/FUL and approve the officer recommendation of approval and the changes set out in the addendum subject to an amendment to condition 21 and a legal agreement.
This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:
For:
9
Against:
0
Not Voting:
0
RESOLVED THAT:
That application 2017/02174/FUL be approved subject to the Addendum, an amendment to condition 21 and a legal agreement.