Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

PROPOSAL

Insertion of 6 roof lights to main pitched roof, insertion of Juliet balcony to northwest elevation and replacement of roofing material change from sheeting to clay tiles (revised plans).

RECOMMENDATION:

(1)     That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose the conditions and informatives as set out within the report.

(2)     That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

Lena Summer, Planning Officer introduced the report, set out the key issues and answered members questions. In introducing the report members were advised that the application related to a two-storey building within a back land site located via a service road from the southern side of Mora Road. The change of use of the building from office to residential had already gained “prior approval” and works were currently being undertaken to convert the property. The site was predominately surrounded by residential properties and four of the exterior walls formed the boundaries with neighbouring properties gardens. To the immediate east, the elevation of the building was bordered by the rear garden of 91 Mora Road. To the south, the party wall was on the boundary of the rear garden of No’s 99 to 107 Ivy Road. To the west of the site, a part two, part three-storey building containing residential accommodation had recently been constructed from planning permission 17/0473 granted in April 2017. The site was not in a Conservation Area nor was it a listed building. St. Michael's Church was a nearby Grade II heritage asset that was situated approximately 25m northwest. The application being heard sought approval for the insertion of 6 roof lights, the insertion of a juliet balcony and a change in roofing material from sheeting to clay tiles.

As no questions were raised by members, the Chair then invited Mr Dunwell (as an objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.

Before Mr Dunwell began addressing the Committee he requested permission to circulate a written copy of his speech. Saira Tamboo, Senior Planning Lawyer confirmed that this would be acceptable on the basis it would provide clarification for members on the issues being raised.  A copy of the speech was therefore provided for all members of the Committee and Mr Dunwell then spoke to highlight the following comments in objection to the application:

·                Mrs Dunwell advised that he was acting to represent the owners of an adjacent property to the site, 91 Mora Road and advised that both he and his clients felt the application to be invalid for a number of reasons.  These included the application site had used part of the land at 91 Mora Road without declaring this in the proper statutory manner; a dispute regarding ownership relating to a right of way across 91b and 91 Mora Road; concerns regarding flood risk and guttering along with the size stated for the width of the side passage.  These issues had been raised with the Planning Officer on which he advised a response was awaited.

·                Given it was felt the applicant had not declared the use of part of the land owned by his clients or properly completed the application form it was felt this had rendered the application invalid and not determinable at the meeting.

·                Concerns were also raised regarding comments in the report relating to the prior approval of application 20/1729 and discharge of conditions and as a result it was felt the application should either be declared invalid or refused or at the very least.

Members had no questions for Mr Dunwell, however sought clarification from officers regarding the issues raised on which the following responses were provided:

·                Given the concerns raised Gerry Ansell (Head of Planning) advised that officers were satisfied the application was valid.

·                Reference was made to plan (displayed at the meeting) showing the red line boundary on the land registry map was with officers assured that proposals within the current application and all material including the balcony fell within the existing red line boundary.

·                Saira Tamboo, Senior Planning Lawyer, confirmed that officers were satisfied the applicant had provided all the necessary documentation to confirm the necessary ownership of the land relating to the application site.

·                Officers confirmed that the development had been assessed against the guidance in DMP1 and was compliant. While the unique close proximity of the existing building to neighbouring gardens was noted, it was considered that the proposed additional roof lights with their restricted opening mechanism) and Juliet balcony complied with relevant policy and guidance and would not have an adverse impact on the neighbouring occupiers or result in loss of privacy, overlooking or unreasonable levels of noise or light pollution.

·                Whilst the application proposed red clay tiles to the main pitched roof (with a mixture of slate and clay tiled roofs in the surrounding area) the applicant had stated that the corrugated roofing contained asbestos and therefore required replacing.  In addressing the environmental impact it was proposed the clay tiles would improve the existing structure and complement both the red brick of the property and surroundings roof profiles.

·                In relation to the previous permission, confirmation was provided that external building alterations such as those being sought in the current application would be required to be submitted separately.

·                Whilst noting the concerns raised in relation to guttering members were advised that no rainwater goods had been proposed and the guttering would not be altered as part of the current application meaning the existing arrangements for drainage would remain.

·                In relation to the impact on wildlife, members were advised that as no changes were being made in terms of the ecology of the site wildlife and bat surveys were not deemed necessary.

As there were no further issues raised and having established that all members had followed the discussions the Chair asked members to vote on the recommendations.

DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out within the report.

(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 8 & Against 0.)