Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was

recommended for approval subject to the eight conditions, as outlined in the report.

The local Member for Shirenewton, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

·         The development has not been built to approved plans. The local Member thanked the Planning Officer for liaising with the applicant to make appropriate changes to improve the development making it more compatible with the existing street scene.

·         One of the garages is not located in an ideal place. However, even if it were moved further forward it would not make a significant difference to the dwelling itself.

·         In terms of the garages, the local Member is pleased that there is a condition in place to retain the garages in perpetuity.

·         The local Member raised questions regarding the status of the garages in the original application and also regarding the materials to be agreed and the type of render being used.

Having received the report of the application and the views expressed by the local Member, the following points were noted:

·         It was considered that the properties and one of the garages were acceptable.  However, the other garage was unacceptable. 

·         The Development Management Area Manager informed the Committee that the height of the garage in the current application was lower than the garage which had been originally approved.

·         The type of render to be used could be agreed via the Delegation Panel or a condition could be set.

·         The parking provision had not previously been conditioned on the previous consent.  It was in accordance with the approved plans.  However, this could be conditioned as remaining as parking provision in perpetuity.

·         The local Member stated that the garages would be constructed from stone with the houses being constructed with stone and render, preferably soft render to remain in keeping with the street scene. A condition should be added to the original application with regard to the parking places.

·         There was support for the Planning Officers in achieving the changes to the application. However, there were concerns regarding the location of one of the garages.

·         The Development Management Area Manager informed the Committee that the height of the dwellings are lower than previously approved.  Garages have previously been approved on this site which are higher than is currently being considered.  The garages have less of an impact than previously approved.

·         One of the garages is considered to be in the wrong orientation when driving into the site.

·         In response to comments made, the Head of Placemaking, Housing, Highways and Flood stated that the application cannot be refused as it is not per the original plans.  It can only be refused if it is considered that there is material harm being caused by what is now being proposed.

·         It was suggested that consideration of the application be deferred to allow the Highways Department to investigate whether the changes are appropriate to allow vehicles leaving the garages to join the highway in a forward gear.

·         It was considered that, in its current form, the relationship of the garages to the house and the street scene is detrimental in terms of appearance and character.  It was suggested that the Committee could vote on whether to approve the houses. Followed by a vote to consider refusal of the garages.

·         The Development Management Area Manager informed the Committee that the access arrangement is the same as was originally approved by Planning Committee. The local community had asked for the boundary wall to be reduced from two metres to one metre.  Therefore, making the garages more visually prominent.  The visibility splays have also been improved. Parking and turning provision remains the same as previously agreed by the Planning Committee.

·         The local Member stated that it would be preferable to have the garages rather than have a one metre wall.

It was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that a split decision be considered for the retention of the houses but not for the retention of the garages.

Proposal: retention of the houses:

In favour of the proposal                -           8

Against the proposal                       -           0

Abstentions                                       -           1

The proposition was carried.

Proposal: Reconsider with the applicant the orientation, footprint and highways issues relating to the garages:

In favour of the proposal                -           4

Against the proposal                       -           0

Abstentions                                       -           5

The proposition was carried.

A vote was undertaken for Planning Officers to liaise with the applicant regarding the garages.  The Planning Committee resolved by a majority vote to undertake this proposal.

We resolved to defer consideration of application DM/2019/00796 to the next Planning Committee meeting.  The revised house designs are acceptable but require the applicant to re-consider the garages by reducing the footprints and to consider re-orientating the roof lines.