Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 12 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Mr. D. Rogers, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The report is predicated on the principle of how it compares with the application as it stood prior to some minor amendments by the applicant. That is a comparison that does not take into account the existing site, neither does it take into account the existing planning permission.

·         The permission identified was part of the overall redevelopment of the Haberdashers boarding houses, one of which is now occupied by the objector.

·         The existing planning permission is for a four bed barn conversion but it did have an additional new building at the rear which was discarded prior to consideration by the Planning Committee.

·         With the present application, by raising the roof and increasing the usable floor area on a first floor level and by inserting an additional extension of the rear, the application returns to the permission that the Committee did not consider but would have refused.

·         The rise of the building has been achieved by a set of louvre wooden framework below the gutter line and as a consequence raising the ridge height.

·         Behind the louvres there are a series of windows which, contrary to information received by officers regarding overlooking, is not properly considered by the report.

·         The report indicates that there are no windows on the gable end to the rear of number 11.  However, what is not taken into account is that there are a series of windows which will be reopened on the flank of the building which is partially adjacent to the objector’s rear garden.  Above that, there will be a series of additional windows behind the louvre which cannot be seen and create an impression of a secret overlooking.  This will have a detrimental effect on the whole of the rear garden of St. James’ House.

·         The report of the application refers to the shortfall in parking on the site.  The existing permission allowed sufficient parking for a four bedroomed property.  This was important to the Planning Committee when it considered the total redevelopment of the area of the Haberdashers properties and all of the properties as they were being considered had to meet the minimum parking standard. However, this has been abandoned.

·         The objector asked the Committee to consider refusing the application as it currently stands.

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

·         The scheme cannot be viewed in isolation.  This development has come forward to the Committee as a part of the scheme previously that was refused and then accepted. 

·         This barn came forward as a conversion of a building to a four bedroomed dwelling and permitted development rights were removed at that time.

·         There have been a number of issues around this development previously regarding the road, access and the setting.

·         The background history has to be read in conjunction with the current application.

·         The application should be considered as a new development with an affordable housing contribution being provided.

·         The application refers to a much higher building with a conversion that is twice the footprint.  The application is not the same development but is twice the development that had been previously presented to Committee.

·         In the design and access statement it was proposed that this development would be brought forward as a self-build and would look to sidestep the policy of providing provision for affordable housing commuted sum.

·         The design is subjective.  The transport statement has been considered as well as the issue of parking.  However, there lies an issue around affordable housing provision and deferral of the application should be considered on the basis that affordable housing provision should be considered for two affordable housing contributions.

·         In response, it was noted that this application should be considered as a new application.  However, in terms of the affordable housing contribution, there is extant planning consent which could be implemented for a four bedroomed house to go onto the site which would not be subject to any affordable housing contribution.  The net increase is for one dwelling over and above what has been previously approved.  In terms of self build, there is an exemption to provide an affordable housing contribution.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

·         The parking provision does not meet the parking policy.  There are double yellow lines throughout the area reducing on street parking provision. In response, it was noted that the four bedroomed property had three parking spaces in the same location.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that we be minded to defer consideration of application DM/2018/00894 to explore the affordable housing contribution and that the application be re-presented to a future Planning Committee meeting for consideration.

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

For deferral               -           11

Against deferral        -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that we be minded to defer consideration of application DM/2018/00894 to explore the affordable housing contribution and that the application be re-presented to a future Planning Committee meeting for consideration.