Issue - meetings

RESOLVED: That application 22/01990/PNAA be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 142 minutes 08 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer advised of the following updates:

·         An extension of time had been agreed until the 5 December 2022.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/01990/PNAA supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Councillor Simon Bloxham declared that he knew the applicant personally. He was advised by the Legal Advisor that whilst this was not a DPI, this was a declarable interest and he should remove himself from this item.

In response to a question from Councillor David Levett, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the proposal was similar in height to neighbouring properties. The roof height of this property would be 8.48 metres, where number 36 is approximately 8.3 metres and numbers 45 and 43 were approximately 8.5 metres in height.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the roof height was partially determined by the requirement for it to be the same pitch as the roof of the existing dwelling.

The Chair invited Ms Diane Burleigh to speak against the item.

Ms Burleigh thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         She was speaking on behalf of Pirton Parish Council who felt that the height would adversely affect this section of the Lane.

·         While the height of the roof has been reduced and it would no longer be the tallest, it would still be one of the tallest.

·         The differing heights of the dwellings on Royal Oak Lane is part of its charm.

·         28 to 34 Royal Oak Lane are from a similar date and are sat back from the road, but the property would not be hidden from public view all year round.

·         Number 34 is clearly part of a distinct group of hoses and changing one would be out of character with the other dwellings in the group.

·         The property is most comparable to 28, 30 and 32, not number 36 and these neighbouring properties to which is compares would have grounds to claim the proposals would have an adverse impact on their homes.

·         The impact on amenity is not limited to overlooking, privacy or loss of light and the impact the height would have on number 32 would mean these was an impact on amenity.

·         Should approval be granted, there should be two further conditions included, one to ensure the first floor is in the same brick as other bungalows and an Article 4 direction placed on future developments into the roof space.

There were no points of clarification from Members and the Chair thanked Ms Burleigh for her presentation.

The Chair invited Councillor Claire Strong to speak against the item, as Member Advocate.

Councillor Strong thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         Due to the unusual nature of the application, she felt it was worthwhile calling this into the Committee to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40