Agenda item

Officers introduced this report and made the following points:

·       The Committee had visited the site today and had looked at the properties at Numbers 1 and 2 Milsom Street

·       Officers had extensively engaged with the applicant both before and after the application to see what development could be possible

·       Application 21/02373/H had been withdrawn on Thursday 26^th August 2021

·       The proposal for Application 21/02372/H would result in an increase in the height of the fire escape and relied on the proposal for a 2 storey projection not requiring planning permission

·       The previous planning permission did not permit an extension to the existing dwelling and was not completed as required by the end of May 2019. Therefore, there was no extant planning permission on the site and officers believed that prior approval no longer exists. As a result, full Planning Permission was required

·       There was an outstanding appeal against an enforcement notice on the property when the Inspector would consider the lawfulness of the extension

·       A previous application had been refused on appeal on three grounds: the extension, unsatisfactory living conditions that would result and the effect of the extension in terms of the privacy of the neighbours

·       Details of the application and the site were shown

·       Details of the extensive site history of the application, as also provided at the previous Committee meeting, were outlined

·       The Committee was shown details of the works which had been withdrawn (shown red) and those which had lapsed and required prior approval (green)

·       An 8.6 metre extension was required with a fire escape which would be between 2.5 and 2.9 metres above ground level

·       It was noted that objections had been received from 2 and 13 Milsom Street, with 2 Councillor comments (1 neutral, 1 supporting)

·       It was considered that the works would be unacceptable in terms of scale and massing and that there would be a loss of amenity and the development would be overbearing

·       Officers believed that the proposal was contrary to Policies PCS1, DM6, DM27 and DM30 and so were recommending refusal

·       The proposed development would be within 10 meters of Stapleton Road which should ideally be 21 within an urban area

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

·       Since the last meeting, the case officer had contacted the applicant by e-mail and the Service Manager, Development Management, had a 30 minute conversation with him. In addition, there had been a zoom meeting with the applicant before the last meeting. The e-mail had set out exactly what would and would not be permissible for any application

·       Whilst there was no evidence to confirm whether or not the applicant’s claim that the previous approval was for a 2 metre development, this was outside the scope of this application.

Councillors made the following comments:

·       It was clear from the site visit that the applicant cared greatly about his grandmother and her health and wanted to do everything to help her. However, it was also clear that the proposal would have a negative impact on 2 Milsom Street and that it was reasonable for anyone living at that property to object to it. It was unfortunate that there had been a breakdown of trust between the parties. External mediation might help with this situation

·       The applicants were urged to get planning agents involved to advise on how a development could be put forward which was likely to get approval and which would meet the needs of the grandmother. If the proposal was just for the ground floor, it was much more likely to be acceptable particularly since the current resident is wheelchair bound. The proposal could not be supported in its current form

·       This proposal would not work. Professional advice was required to quickly resolve the situation

·       It was disappointing that it had not been possible to obtain an agreement on this

·       The situation had taken a step backwards since the last Committee meeting. The proposal for one Planning Application did not make sense. An alternative solution was required which would be acceptable

·       There was a strong indication from the meeting that a different proposal for a 1 storey development might be acceptable to the Committee

The Committee agreed that, following the decision, they would meet with the applicant to discuss what future arrangements they might wish to pursue.

It was moved by Councillor Ani Stafford-Townsend, seconded by Councillor Tony Dyer and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (5 for, 0 against, 1 abstention) – that application number 21/02372/H is refused on the basis of an unacceptable and unsympathetic design and on the basis of unacceptable residential amenity impacts.