Agenda item

Refuse Consent

With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning informed the Committee about a letter of support from a neighbouring occupier.  He continued that most of the issues raised in that letter had been addressed in the main report except for the claim that if the building was converted back into a garage it could be used a workshop by a car mechanic.  In response, the Head of Area Planning stated that the change of use of the garage to a car repair workshop would require a planning permission.

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor J Moher referred to the officer's assessment of the application and stated that the claim that the additional living accommodation may be occupied by a number of unnamed people, resulting in a significant intensification of use could be addressed by conditions.  Additionally, conditions could be imposed to address any likelihood of change of use to Use Class C4 (Houses in Multiple Occupation) and maintain residential amenities.  Councillor J Moher expressed a view that it would be unrealistic to have facilities (kitchen and bathroom) removed or to prevent the return of the property to family housing as he did not foresee any harm resulting from the application for variation of planning consent.

Mr Robert McAteer, the applicant in addressing the Committee stated that the the extension was in keeping with the environment and streetscene.  He felt that the officer's assessment of the application was rather misleading and considered as unreasonable, the list of conditions suggested by officers for the grant of planning permission. In support Mr McAteer stated that the building was currently described as a granny annexe, independently rated for council tax purposes and shown as a bungalow on the Council's website. He added that his 86 year old father in law was currently living in the bungalow which he hoped to move into in future.

During members' discussion, Councillors Cummins and Hashmi noted that the building had been used as a habitable/residential unit for over 10 years and indicated that they would be minded to grant planning permission contrary to the officer's recommendation.  Councillor RS Patel enquired as to whether the grant of planning permission could set a precedent for the area.  In response, the Head of Area Planning stated that each application was decided on its merits but he did not think that the particular circumstances of this application would commonly apply.

Members were minded to approve the application for variation of condition contrary to officers' recommendation.  In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice voting on the officer's recommendation for refusal was recorded as follows:

FOR:               Councillors McLennan, Mitchell-Murray and Sheth     (3)

AGAINST:      Councillors Cummins, Hashmi, Kabir, CJ Patel

                        and RS Patel                                                                                    (5)                                                      

ABSTENTION:          Councillor Baker                                                      (1)

The Chair asked Members to clarify the reasons for over-turning the recommendation and the proposed statement was agreed as being that the use had existed for over ten years, the general need for such accommodation and that it would allow the family to continue to live at the property.