Decision details

With reference to the tabled supplementary information Steve Weeks drew members’ attention to additional concerns raised by the adjoining neighbour and officers’ responses to them.  He clarified the position on the certificate of lawfulness of use adding that the issue of the scale of development had to be considered against the original building and plot size as well as the local area.  He continued that the paved front forecourt, would be able to accommodate at least 2 off-street parking spaces and in keeping with the required parking standard.  He recommended an additional condition to ensure that the property was restricted to use as a single family dwellinghouse.

Mr Jeff Munton objected to the proposed development on the following grounds;

The plans submitted with the application did not clearly describe the existing property in respect of floor area and accommodation.

The property had been the subject of five previous applications by the same applicant/agent for extensions to the roof, side and rear of the property and change of use to bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless families.

Although two of the applications had been granted Certificate of Lawfulness Development, the applicant had not implemented them to date and when he did, the property would resemble a small hotel or boarding house rather than a family dwelling unit.

There were already in the area a large number of properties in the area which following extensions were being used as houses in multiple occupation.

The proposal and the possible use would be out of character and could result in loss of quality of life of the local residents.

The development would constitute an overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of residential amenities.

At the start of members’ discussion, Councillor Thomas moved an amendment for a site visit to enable members to assess the impact of the development.  Prior to voting, Steve Weeks advised the Committee that in design terms the proposal complied with policies adding that fear of a possible future event was not a valid planning reason to warrant a recommendation for refusal. Members voted on the amendment for a site visit which was declared carried.