Agenda item

The Committee will vote separately on each planning application for this item.

Officers introduced this report and made the following comments as part of their presentation:

·       Details of the two separate applications were outlined

·       It was noted that the applications were retrospective

·       Planning Application Number 21/02372/H - Officers considered that the proposals  would further exacerbate the existing scale and massing through an additional 0.8m height increase to the 6.0m rear extension. In addition, the proposed fire escape structure would afford occupants increased opportunity to overlook the rear elevations and amenity space of

Stapleton Road and as well as exacerbating the residential amenity of 2 Milsom Street through additional overbearing and overshadowing. Following two separate assessments, this application remained unacceptable on design and residential amenity grounds

·       Planning Application Number 21/02373/H – Officers considered that, due to the scale and protrusion, coupled with a prior approval rear extension, the development protrudes 10.5metres from the existing rear elevation, undermining the residential amenity of adjacent occupants. As such, the development would be unacceptable on design and residential amenity

grounds. This application would also fail the 45 degree test

Therefore, officers were recommending that both applications were refused.

In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following points:

·       Officers noted concerns about the personal medical circumstances of the applicant and confirmed that these had been taken into account as part of the process. An Equalities Impact Assessment had confirmed that these did not outweigh the harm which would be caused by the developments

·       It was noted that obscured glazing and fire escape fabrication could be used to mitigate such applications

·       There has been a prior approval for a 6 metre extension in 2019 but there were no extant planning permissions on site. Officers explained that a prior approval permission granted permission to consult neighbours abutting the site concerning its total projection and height. However, as this application exceeded proposed dimensions, it still required planning approval

·       The mid section had commenced without planning permission in anticipation of approval, although the Local Authority had not granted it. The site was subject to current enforcement action

·       Officers drew members’ attention to the photographs of what was commenced on site

·       A comparison was shown between the two proposals to confirm that none of the indicated extension to the rear of the property had any Planning Permission

·       If the Committee were to grant the applications, the Local Planning Authority would withdraw from the appeal process for this site

Councillors then made the following points during discussion:

·       In view of the nature of the site and the applicants involved, Councillors needed to visit the site to form a judgement

·       A site visit would be helpful. However, it would also be helpful if this was approved and following it coming back to Committee, if officers were to provide an assessment of what work could be carried out to ensure that the site was brought into compliance with a permitted development

·       Whilst a Site Visit would help with certain elements of this application, such as the view from Stapleton Road, neither application complied with the requirements to be approved. The Inspector concurred with this view

·       It was noted that relations were strained between both parties

·       The applicant should be encouraged to consider revisions to the site as a way of compromising and ensuring compliance

·       A site visit might be of limited help as the bar for the applicants to obtain approval was very high in comparison with the current proposals

·       If the officers’ recommendations were not supported, this could set a dangerous precedent. Any proposal for a site visit should not be supported.

Officers reiterated that they could consider revisions to the site subject to a willingness on the part of the applicant to do this.

Councillor Fabian Breckels moved, seconded by Councillor Guy Poultney and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (6 for, 2 against, 1 abstention) – that a decision on both applications be deferred pending a formal Site Visit by the Committee and further discussions between officers and the applicant concerning bringing them into compliance with the required policies.