Agenda item

Further to the report the Officers emphasised that concerns raised regarding the relocation of an existing private pedestrian right of way could not be taken into account as part of this application.

Daniel Waller made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He advised that that he resided in St Nicholas Place near the application site and that the proposal would obstruct the existing established right of way which he and his neighbours enjoyed. He commented that the proposed right of way was not acceptable.  He raised concerns regarding construction in terms of impact on utilities such as gas and electric and in terms of damage to the foundations of properties in Coach Row.  He again referred to the pedestrian right of way stating that development over it would be illegal.  Finally, he commented that if the plans were amended to omit the relocation of the right of way, he would raise no objection.

Chris Sykes, the applicant made a statement in support of the application advising that the reason for the proposal was to increase the kitchen area of his property and to provide additional wash facilities.  He explained that the existing pedestrian access would not be closed until the new path was finalised. He commented on his regard to the concerns raised by the neighbours and explained that he wished to retain an access for them.  He reported that fencing was proposed and that water and gas pipes would be rerouted when still in use thus causing minimal disturbance. He reported that the proposal would not impact on parking in the area and that the new layout would make better use of the land. Finally, he commented that the proposal would improve his property and that materials would in keeping with the character of the area.

One Member supported the application but considered that an informative should be added to any permission to advise the applicant that any permission should not be seen as consent for the change of route of the footpath which was a private civil legal matter.

One Member whilst noting that the site was not in a Conservation Area expressed concern regarding the visual impact of the proposal.  He referred to the plan set out in Appendix 1 to the report and commented that as the end property in Coach Row was set well back from the neighbours, the entirety of the gable end of the application house was clearly visible from along the street.  He considered that the elevations were unattractive and that a single extension would have a harmful visual impact on the street scene in this part of East Challow.

In response to a concern raised regarding the loss of light to the neighbours on the ground floor, the Officers confirmed that the distances between the application site and the neighbouring properties were acceptable.

In response to a further comment made, the Officers clarified that relocation of the private pedestrian right of way or ownership of the land were not material planning considerations. 

Other Members supported the application.

By 13 votes to 1, it was

RESOLVED

that application ECH/20214 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report together with an informative to advise the applicant that any permission should not be seen as consent for the change of route of the pedestrian right of way which was a private civil legal matter.