Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the nine conditions, as outlined in the report.

Mr. Beswick, objecting to the application and attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:

• He has lived at No. 8 Rectory Gardens since 1984.

• The proposed dwelling will create a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

• Magor with Undy Community Council has recommended refusal of the application.

• The footprint of the proposed dwelling lies very close to the boundary with No. 8 Rectory Gardens.

• The proposed dwelling will create a domineering / overbearing presence.

• Tree planting might help to alleviate some of the issues.

• Lighter roof tiles rather than the proposed black roof tiles would be preferable so that the proposed dwelling would be more in keeping with the surrounding properties.

• The pitch of the roof needed to be reduced.

• There are road safety concerns. The B4245 is a very busy road where vehicles often exceed the speed limit.

• The objector asked the Planning Committee to consider refusing the application or restrict the development to take into account the concerns of nearby local residents.

Mr. D. Prosser, the applicant’s agent, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:

• The application has been amended in which the height of the proposed dwelling has been lowered and the mass of the proposed dwelling has been reduced.

• The single storey element is more than two metres from the hedge near to number 8 Rectory Gardens.  The two storey element being even further away from number 8 Rectory Gardens.

• The proposed dwelling will create less of a visual impact due to the amended application.
• The proposed development will not be dominating or overbearing.

• The Planning Officer’s report addresses the issues raised via the objections to the application.  The Planning Officer’s assessment has been thorough and on balance, the impact is considered not to be significant.

• A neighbourly proposal has been established.

The adjoining ward Member and Planning Committee Member outlined the following points:

·         The visual amenity issue is more significant than stated in the Planning Officer’s assessment.

·         Local residents have a right to residential amenity.  However, this application is harmful to residential amenity as the application runs along the fence line of No. 8 Rectory Gardens.

·         Consideration of the application should be deferred to allow Planning Officers to renegotiate with the applicant with a view to re-siting the proposed dwelling within the plot.

Other Members agreed with the adjoining ward Member and discussion was also held regarding the colour of the render, roof slates and whether to re-consult with neighbours if amended plans were received.

Having received the report and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that consideration of application DC/2015/01528 should be deferred to be amended and if revised, permission should be issued via the Delegation Panel with a view to exploring the possibility of moving the proposed dwelling towards Fairfield Court and moving back towards the railway line; specify the colour of the render; change roof slates to those more common in the area and re-consult with neighbours if amended plans were received.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For deferral               -           13

Against deferral        -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/01528 would be deferred to be amended and if revised, permission would be issued via the Delegation Panel with a view to exploring the possibility of moving the proposed dwelling towards Fairfield Court and moving back towards the railway line; specify the colour of the render; change roof slates to those more common in the area and re-consult with neighbours if amended plans were received.