Agenda item

(Councillor Pam Westwood had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she left the meeting during its consideration.  Councillors Terry Cox, Roger Cox, Tony de Vere, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Bob Johnston, Monica Lovatt, Jim Moley, Briony Newport, Jerry Patterson, Derek Rawson, Peter Saunders, Margaret Turner and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration).

It was reported that a letter of objection had been received from the owners of 11 Vale Avenue raising concerns relating to over development of the site, restriction of natural light to their property, erosion of privacy to the rear garden, recent garage conversion without planning permission and the further expansion of an existing child minding business.   In respect of the garage conversion the Area Planning Officer confirmed that planning permission was not required.  Furthermore, it was reported that the County Engineer had raised no objection subject to the provision of two off street car parking spaces being provided on the site.

Mrs M Phillips of 11 Vale Avenue, made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns to matters already covered in the report and reported above.  She claimed that the proposed development of an additional 227 square feet would result in the original dwelling having been increased in size by 100%.  She asked that if planning permission was granted the two new ground floor windows of the proposed lounge be glazed with opaque glass to maintain privacy.  Finally, she expressed her disappointment that Members of the Committee had not visited her property to gauge the impact of the proposed development.

In response to Members’ concerns regarding the alleged expansion of the child minding business at the application site, the Area Planning Officer explained that the Council had not been previously aware of a child minding business at the site and would need to investigate.  As a general rule, the Council adhered to informal guidance in respect of child minding businesses operated from residential properties, in that planning permission would be required for any business looking after more than six children (including any children resident at the property).

Members generally accepted that the proposed development accorded with the Council’s design guidance, although it was recognised that it was a large extension.  In considering the application, Members were of the view that the two new ground floor windows of the proposed lounge should be obscure glazed.  The Area Planning Officer explained that the two windows could be inserted in the existing single storey extension, prior to the proposed two storey extension being built, without the need for them to be obscure glazed.  However, an informative could be attached to any permission granted suggesting the use of obscure glazing.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application GRO/4788/3 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, together with informative suggesting that the two new ground floor windows be obscure glazed and advising that planning permission would be required for a child minding business looking after more than six children (this figure to include any children resident at the property).