Agenda item

Site Visit - 10.30am – 10.45am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought to erect a single storey rear extension, which was part retrospective.

A site visit had taken place prior to the commencement of the Planning Committee in order that Members could see the impact of the proposed development, as it was considered difficult to visualise.

Members considered the presentation from the Senior Planner, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

Councillor P Peacock, speaking against the application as Local Ward Member  (Edwinstowe & Clipstone) raised his concern that the extension would be structurally unsound and would create damp for neighbouring property No. 4.  The extension was imposing on the neighbouring property No. 4, as the land dropped away.  Concern was also raised regarding the product proposed to stain the brickwork, although he commented that he had been assured that the product proposed would not fade or flake over time.  It was commented that a condition could not be secured to ensure that the occupier painted the extension brickwork every two years.  Concern was also raised regarding the painting of the wall adjoining the neighbouring property fence and how the section of wall behind the neighbour’s fence would be painted and how the fence panels would be removed in the future due to the overhang of the guttering, as there was no party wall agreement in place.  It was commented that this was a retrospective application and the extension had been in situ for some time.  Some enforcement action had also been taken.

Members considered the application and a Member commented that Core Policy 9 stated ‘a high-quality sustainable design’ it was commented that the extension was unsympathetic and that there was no evidence that the extension had been built to building regulation standard.  It was commented that the extension was incongruous; over-bearing and loss of amenity to neighbours; and was the wrong brick, which was not sympathetic to the existing house brick.  Members considered what was allowed under Permitted Development Rights.  A Member suggested a recommended change and asked that the wall adjoining the neighbouring property should be painted, as that would have a detrimental visual impact if the neighbour choose to replace the fence panels in the future. 

The Senior Planning Officer asked Members to consider the over-coating of the brickwork and not what had been built.

A vote was taken for the amendment to the conditions, to ensure the method statement included the painting of the entire extension walls including the south facing wall.  The Senior Planner advised that the proposed amendment to the condition would not be reasonable.The amendment was approved with 7 votes For and 6 votes Against.

A vote was taken and lost with 1 vote For and 12 votes Against approval including the amendment.

The application was proposed by Councillor M Shakeshaft and seconded by Councillor C Brooks.

AGREED     (with 12 votes For and 1 vote Against) that contrary to Officer recommendation that planning permission be refused for the following grounds:

(i)               loss of amenity to the neighbour;

(ii)             size – overbearing nature; and

(iii)            in appropriate overcoating.

In accordance with paragraph 13.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.

Councillor P Harris left the meeting at this point.