Agenda item

Councillor Tony de Vere had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he left the meeting during its consideration.

Mr G Carson a neighbour made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concerns regarding the proximity of the proposal; over-looking; un-neighbourliness; height; dominance; adverse impact and visual harm.  He commented that there would be a 14 ft high wall at the end of his garden which he considered would adversely impact the enjoyment of his amenity through over dominance and visual impact.  He commented that he would have the feeling of imprisonment and that the proposal was unacceptable.  He referred to conditions attached to the original planning permission in particular retention of trees and expressed concern at the Officers’ comments now in this regard and the lack of necessity now to keep the trees. He reported that to date in carrying out works permitted by the early permission there had been a fractured gas main; for two months and excavator had been parked near his property; there had been anti social behaviour; dust and noise. He commented that the current proposal was harmful in terms of causing him physical and mental damage.  Finally, he commented on his health problems which he considered were as a direct result from the stress caused by the current situation with regard to the development at the site and he urged the Committee to do the right thing and refuse the application.

Mr R Coulson made a statement in support of the proposal commenting that the approved scheme had included the demolition of the garage.  He explained that this proposal was to allow the erection of a garage for plot 4. He commented that the design would be in keeping with locality and the proposal would utilise a flank wall.  He considered that the proposal was visually acceptable.  He referred to the comments made regarding the removal of trees and explained that this had been covered by condition attached to the earlier permission.  He advised that the Maple tree on site would be retained.  Finally, he reported that in terms of design, half hipped gables and a lower pitch were proposed; there would be no issues of overlooking and no undue harm caused.

One Member expressed his sympathy for the health problems of the objector but commented that he could see no material planning reason to refuse the application.  He explained that the proposal was only slightly higher than a structure which could be built under permitted development rights and that in his view the proposal set out an acceptable building which would be better in terms of visual appearance and roof pitch.

One Member referred to the plans set out in the report, to which the Officers explained that one plan showed the roof which included an overhang and therefore looked as if it occupied a bigger area of the site.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application KBA/6770/14 b approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.