Agenda item

(Councillor Pam Westwood had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34, she withdrew from the meeting during its consideration).

Mr McCay made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concern regarding noise commenting that electrical equipment would be in the room next to his bedroom and he would be disturbed by noise and vibration.  He reported that a noise assessment was not a satisfactory solution and that his welfare had not been taken into account.  He questioned how measures could be put into place after planning permission was granted.  He questioned what guarantees and monitoring arrangements would be put in place.  He referred to existing parking on the green public amenity area.

John Freeth, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the Committee should have regard to genuine planning considerations only.  He advised that the development was in accordance with the Local Plan and with local design and architecture.  He referred to access and parking amenities of neighbouring households commenting that there was no sustainable reason to refuse permission. He referred to PPG 3, claiming that this encouraged mixed communities and different types of housing.  He referred to the three areas of concern identified at the last meeting, all of which had been addressed.  He referred to the comment from the County Council and Building Control. He advised that the applicant was aware that an easement across the land was needed and that the County Council as highway authority had indicated that the proposal caused no impediment as means of access. He explained that the balcony element had now been withdrawn and that all concerns had been satisfactorily resolved.  Finally, he reported that the proposed conditions were acceptable to the applicant.

Some Members supported that application commenting that the Committee must have regard to the expert advice received and that without contrary evidence the Committee had no reason to refuse the application. It was noted that had confirmed that noise mitigation measures could be taken and that this was a control matter which would be dealt with by Building Control and not a planning issue.  It was further noted that should a statutory noise nuisance result, this could be addressed under Environmental Health Act powers.

Other Members raised concern at the proposal commenting that considering remedies for a possible statutory noise nuisance was discouraging.  It was suggested that this particular steel frame building was not suitable for conversion and that there would be a noise nuisance

One Member question whether it was normal practice for the Building Control Officer to visit the building before giving advice.   The Officers responded that they could not confirm that a visit had been made, but assured Members that the Building Control Officer was aware of these types of these buildings.

Consideration was given to the removal of permitted development rights.  Members wished to ensure that the applicant could not implement only part of the planning permission, namely the extension and then install a balcony as permitted development.   However, the Officers advised that flats did not have permitted development rights and hence there were none to remove by condition.

One Member commented that the applicant could seek to install a larger window under permitted development and thereafter implement the planning permission.  However, it was noted that if the applicant implemented the permission it was necessary to comply with its requirements, which showed a small window.

By 12 votes to nil, with 3 abstentions, with 1 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item, it was

RESOLVED

that application WAN/19036 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.