Agenda item

Andy Watt, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which sought to vary Condition 2 of planning permission DM/17/0537, an application that was approved by the committee for the erection of a detached dwelling, detached garage and access. The effect of the variation was to substitute revised plans to reflect retrospective amendments to the position of dwelling. He drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet and an additional letter of objection that also provide supplementary photographs of the application site. He highlighted the variation to the dwelling and stated that it had moved approximately 5 metres south and rotated 20 degrees clockwise relative to the development allowed at appeal.

Claire Pickford, local resident, spoke against the application.

Mark Best, agent of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Andrew Barrett Miles, Ward Member for Dunstall, spoke against the application and drew attention to the planning history of the application site. He explained that his concerns of the significant impact to neighbouring amenity due to overbearing and lack of privacy was confirmed when he attended the site. The dwelling could be seen between the properties of 5, 6 and 7 The Oaks and was found to be overbearing more so when in the garden of an adjoining property.

The Chairman sought further clarification on the planning history of the application site.

Nick Rogers, Business Unit Leader for Development Management, explained that the Council refused an application in 2012 however the Planning Inspector allowed the appeal and granted planning permission.

He advised that the Council approved the subsequent application in 2017. These permissions are material considerations. Aside from the repositioning of the building, lowering of the roof lights and replacement of a half window with a rooflight the application is the same as previously approved.

The Chairman enquired whether the trees would be more protected with the house moved back to the position seen in the current application compared to the approved application.

The Business Unit Leader for Development Management confirmed that the resited house is further from the trees on the northern boundary than that allowed on appeal...

A Member expressed that she was not comfortable with the application. She enquired the distance of the dwelling from the boundary of the site that adjoins 6 The Oaks.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the distance is 11 metres.

A Member questioned the impact of overlooking on the neighbouring properties.

The Senior Planning Officer explained the rear elevation to rear elevation for 7 The Oaks is 21 metres; 22 metres for 6 The Oaks and 25 metres for 5 The Oaks but there would be no significant overlooking from the windows in the northern elevation.

The Vice-Chairman felt unsure about his decision as he could not visualise the proposed application position in the presentation provided to the committee.

The Business Unit Leader for Development Management outlined that he did not want the committee to make a decision if they felt like that did not have suitable information to make a decision. He added that he can contact the applicant to provide a further single drawing to show the relative positions of the house approved on appeal, by the Council in 2017 and that subject of the current application and advised that in those circumstances the application could be deferred.

Tom Clark, Solicitor to the Council, clarified that the committee cannot make a decision if they do not feel they have the right information.

The Chairman noted that the committee wished to defer the application pending further information so moved to the recommendation to defer which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred to request further information from the applicant about the exact location of the property.