Issue - meetings

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)      The conditions and informatives, as set out in the committee report, together with an amended Condition 10ii:

•         That the details of garden wall, fences or other form of boundary treatment be provided within the site (including details of external materials and heights), and security measures relating to any gates to the rear garden),

PROPOSAL

Proposed construction of a dwellinghouse with landscaping works to the front and rear gardens, installation of boundary wall and bike and bin storage.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The conditions and informatives, as set out in the committee report.

Janesway Cheung (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the report, advising members that the application sought full planning permission for a two storey 3 bed, 5 person dwelling which would form a new end of terrace property adjoining with the existing pair of semi-detached dwellings at No.123 and No.125 Preston Road. The development was designed with a pitched roof, with a ridge height of c.8.15m. The proposal also included a single-storey rear extension, measuring 6.0 m in depth, with a flat roof and an eaves and maximum height of 3.0 m. Additional works comprised the creation of a front forecourt with landscaping, combined cycle and refuse storage, the erection of a brick front boundary wall, brick side boundary treatment, and timber fencing along the remaining side boundary. Private external amenity space would be provided to the rear garden for the use of residents at the property. Members also noted that the application had followed refusal of a previous application (ref: 25/1246) on design and appearance grounds that was subsequently upheld and dismissed at appeal on 19 January 2026. The key difference with this scheme was related to the amended roof form from a mono-pitch roof to pitch roof to the dwelling, the altered siting, size and design of the first-floor front facing window and first floor flank window. This was in contrast to the previous scheme, which proposed a predominantly white-coloured external finish to the dwelling, the revised proposal incorporated red brickwork, red clay roof tiles, white render, and PPC matte white aluminum framed windows and doors.

Attention was also drawn to the supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, which noted the receipt of one new objection and a further objection from an individual who had previously commented. Members were advised that a summary of the issues raised, together with the officers’ responses, had been detailed within the supplementary report. The recommendation remained to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions and informatives set out within the main committee report.

The Chair thanked Janesway Cheung for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to consider a request which had been received to speak on the application and invited Kunal Shah (who had registered to speak as an objector, online) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• In opening his comments Kunal Shah began by stating that the proposed development would be physically attached to his home as his property adjoined the application site.

• Attention was drawn to the Planning Inspector’s appeal decision dated 19 January 2026. Kunal Shah advised that the Inspector had undertaken a site visit, assessed the proposal and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4