|
Variation of Condition 2 (to W/02132) to amend plans to include
revised access ramp and amendments to dwelling.
Prior to consideration of the application, a request was
received from the local councillor for consideration of the
application to be deferred for a further site visit to be
undertaken to enable the Committee to view the development from an
objector’s rear garden on the basis access had not been
possible that morning due to a misunderstanding between herself and
the objector
The
Legal Services Manager advised that as the site visit had been
undertaken in accordance with the planning protocol, there was no
justifiable legal reason for deferring the application to undertake
an additional site visit.
Following a vote, it was:
RESOLVED
that the request received for the deferment of the application for
a further site visit to be undertaken be not acceded to and the
Committee proceed with its consideration and
determination.
The Senior Development Officer referred to the private site visit undertaken by the
Committee earlier that day (minute 3.2 of the Planning Committee
held on the 28th
March 2024, refers), the purpose of which
was to enable the Committee to assess the full impact of the
application.
She referred, with the aid of PowerPoint slides, to
the written report of the Head of Place and Sustainabilitywhich
provided an appraisal of the site together with a description of
the proposal, a summary of consultation responses received and
information relating to the local and national policies relevant to
the assessment of the application. She advised that the Head of
Place and Sustainability was recommending approval of the
application subject to the conditions within the report and to any
other conditions required to be imposed by the
Committee.
Representations were received from two
objectors to the application re-iterating the objection points
detailed within the Head of Planning’s written report which
included;
·
The development, having been
erected on a higher elevation to neighbouring properties, was
imposing and dominant being obtrusive and detrimentally impacting
on the privacy, amenity and enjoyment of those properties and their
rear gardens due to overlooking.
·
had the original plan been
adhered to, neighbours would not have any objections.
·
adverse impact on the health of
neighbours and their well-being.
·
the amendments had been
undertaken without the benefit of planning consent and therefor
consent should not be granted with the unauthorized elements being
removed.
·
Lack of consultations on the
changes to the original application in 1999.
The applicant’s
agent and Senior Development Management Officer responded to the
issues raised.
|
PDF 248 KB