Agenda item

Councillors Matthew Barber, Terry Cox, Angela Lawrence, Jerry Patterson and Laurel Symons had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Councillor Pat Lonergan had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

Mr R Brockbank made a statement objecting to the application commenting that he was please to see the Northcourt Conservation Area Appraisal advising that there was a need to preserve quite open garden space and protect the lane.  He raised concerns regarding the proposal being contrary to policies; the direct affect of the proposal; over development; road safety; only notional traffic calming measures; the importance of neighbouring houses; loss of trees; adverse impact on the quiet lane; noise; parking; loss of rural character and the ineffectiveness of a Grampian condition.  He suggested that the Committee was correct to refuse the application in 2005 and he stated that as nothing had changed the Committee should refuse this application.

Mr Impney the applicant made a statement in support of the application commenting that he had sent papers to Councillors outside of the meeting addressing the concerns in the Inspector’s report.  He referred to the report commenting that he would welcome any suggestions to stop the narrowing of the road.  He commented that he would minimise disturbance as much as possible and that infilling was normal.  He expressed his vexation at the comments from the neighbour commenting that the neighbour had given an undertaking not to object to development. He explained that the neighbour had removed an old yew tree and that maintenance was required to other trees.  Finally he explained that the landscaping scheme would be beneficial.

The local Members, joined with other Members made the following comments in support of the application: -

·                    The bungalow would be tucked away out of sight and would have no adverse impact on the visual appearance of the area.

·                    The trees would be preserved.

·                    Passers by would not be adversely affected by the proposal.

·                    There would be no harm caused as the proposal would be not be visible from any public view points.

·                    Development in a Conservation Area could be allowed where there was no harm to the character and appearance of the area.  However, in this case it was unclear what the harm would be. Members’ attention was drawn to paragraph 14 of the report and Officers explained that the issue of spaciousness had not been overcome.

Some Members spoke against the application making the following comments: -

·                    The Conservation Area should be preserved.

·                    The Inspector talked of the “silvan nature” of this wooded site and there was a need to protect the trees.

·                    It was not agreed that the proposal would be totally hidden from public view behind the wall.

·                    There was concern regarding traffic.

·                    The suggestion of a Grampian condition was noted and concern was expressed that this was not being considered particularly in the light of the Inspector’s comments.  The Officers drew the Committees attention to paragraph 5.6 of the report explaining that it was unlikely that these conditions would be allowed in isolation. It was considered that the County Engineers comments regarding a Grampian condition were not encouraging.

·                    Approval of the application would set a precedent and that cumulatively similar proposals would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area.

By 8 votes to 4 with 2 abstentions it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/10612/17 be refused for the reasons set out in the report.