Agenda item

Application Proposal: Application to vary condition no. 2 of (approved plans) of planning approval 09/3037/FUL, 11/02147/S73 and 16/03330/S73A to substitute with revised plans.

(Councillor Nick Colbert declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest as he owns a property nearby to the site)

The Planning Officer presented her report to members. She explained that the application was to change 2 of the plots from bungalows to two story dwellings and to enlarge a further home. She also advised members that she had received a late letter of objection.

Using a PowerPoint presentation she provided images of the site and plans to show the proposed amended dwellings. She explained that the breach of contract which objectors had raised was a civil issue and explained that it was her recommendation that the planning application be approved.

Mr G Duffy spoke in objection to the application. He explained that he had purchased his new home ‘off plan’ and felt that larger homes would mean more people and more cars. He also explained to members that there was a restriction on the development to prohibit parking on the street. He advised that there is a need for bungalows and there is no commercial benefit to amending the proposal.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, explained that people had bought homes on the understanding that the homes were going to be bungalows and not houses and understood why the neighbours were upset. For this reason, he objected to the application.

Councillor Hayward Burt, also Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He explained that the original scheme was for a well-balanced development with houses on one side of the road and bungalows on the other. He felt that it was unfair that the goalposts had been moved and that the development would be amended at this late stage. He also commented that there was a shortage of bungalows. He stated that there were not enough parking spaces on site, which was made worse by the restrictive on-street parking. He stated that the application should be refused as it was contrary to policies TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be refused contrary to the planning officer recommendation as plots 2 and 3 would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in the way of overlooking and loss of privacy contrary to policy EQ2 and the increase in size would result in an inappropriate and unusable parking arrangements contrary to policies TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/04047/S73 be refused contrary to the planning officer recommendation for the following reasons;

01.          The proposed alterations to plots 2 and 3 would, by reason of their resultant height, size, and position, result in an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by way of overlooking and the resultant loss in privacy, contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

02.          The proposed alterations to plots and 2 and would 3, by reason of the increase in size and numbers of bedrooms, result in an inappropriate and unusable parking layout contrary to policies TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Voting: unanimous)