Agenda item

Application Proposal: Application to vary condition 02 (approved plans) of 14/05486/FUL for the addition of 4 No. radius oak braces to side elevation.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.  Members were also shown the presentation slides presented to them in 2014 as requested at the last meeting and noted that the slides did not show the overhang. The key considerations associated with the application were inconsistency between approved plans – legal opinion and impact of the proposed braces on character and appearance/setting of Conservation Area.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval subject to conditions.

The Senior Legal Executive clarified the legal position on the application.  She explained that she had looked back over the whole application and that permission must be interpreted on face value in terms of the documents contained in the permission.  It was unfortunate that the plan did not form part of the presentation to members but it had been part of the approved documents. The document formed part of the plans listed and could have been viewed on the planning file therefore the permission was lawful.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         The structure of the carport was not a planning issue;

·         He would be surprised if the carport needed any additional structure support;

·         There was an error in the report.  As members no longer needed to consider lawfulness of the conflicting plans they were asked to dismiss the paragraph relating to this in the report.

The Committee was addressed by Nigel Mermagen, Andrew Simkins, Brian Tucker and John Chance in objection to the application.  Views expressed during the representations included the following:

·         Concerns over the loss of a valuable parking space;

·         The proposal was contrary to best practice as outlined in the extensions and alterations design guide;

·         The carport was harmful to the streetscene;

·         Dimensions of the carport should be reduced;

·         Concerns over the overbearing size and appearance of the carport;

·         The carport was very restrictive and confining;

·         The carport was not subservient to the house. The front and side elevation should be brought back;

·         The wooden braces would make the structure even worse and were not necessary;

·         Objections had been received from all the neighbouring properties.

During the representations presentation slides submitted by Nigel Mermagen, Andrew Simkins and Brian Turner were shown to members of the Committee.

Ward Member, Cllr Sue Osborne raised her concern over the Committee not being presented with the full information at the February meeting and that the overhang was clearly unacceptable to the residents.  She commented that the structure was very dominant and that if the residents felt strongly enough there should be a mechanism for complaint.  She felt that the braces were not needed and that there was no supporting evidence to suggest why they were needed.  She was of the opinion that the braces would make the structure even more dominant.

In response to a member comment, the Planning Officer confirmed that permitted development rights had been removed with the previous approval.

In response to a member comment, the Senior Legal Executive reiterated that the plan was part of the application documents and could have been viewed at any time.  There was a period where the permission could have been challenged but the period had now expired.

During discussion on the application, members referred to there being a process for a complaint to be made.  They were of the view that the braces were unnecessary and it was therefore proposed and seconded to refuse the application contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

·         The addition of 4 oak braces would cumulatively add to the visual prominence of the structure;

·         Harmful to the character, appearance and setting of the adjacent Conservation Area, the streetscene and amenity of adjacent residents;

·         Contrary to Policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the Local Plan.

On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 12 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.