Issue - meetings

RESOLVED: That application 22/03245/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with the following additional conditions:

“Condition 4:

No development shall commence until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the construction of the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall detail:

(1)   Construction vehicle numbers.

(2)   Access arrangements to the site for the delivery of materials and equipment.

(3)   Details of the storage of materials on-site.

(4)   Timing of construction activities (including delivery times and removal of waste) and the hours of construction.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and residential amenity”.

“Condition 5:

All paving hereby approved and constructed on site shall be permeable unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of ensuring that suitable drainage is provided”. 

Audio recording – 24 minutes 33 seconds

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that there were no updates or changes since the report, but some extra labels had been added to the plan of the roof slope.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 22/03245/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

In response to a question from Councillor Louise Peace, the Planning Officer advised, that the party wall was a civil matter and did not pertain to the application.

The Chair invited Pirton Parish Councillor Diane Burleigh to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Burleigh thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       The Parish Council would not have objected to a more modest version of the application but felt this extension was too large and dominant in what was a small and cramped space.

·       The property was part of three terraced cottages from the late 19^th Century which have a 13.5-foot-wide narrow garden.

·       The property was listed as a property of interest in the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan.

·       Under section 8 and 3 of the Neighbourhood Plan the extension would not meet the guidelines and would not enhance the Conservation Area.

·       The extension was taller that the current outbuilding, and at over 12 feet wide the extension would provide very little room between the boundaries.

·       The current house had a footprint of 40 square meters or 46 if the outbuilding was included. The extension would increase the footprint to 69.

·       The extension was not sympathetic to the neighbouring properties, from No 7 there would be 20 inches of path and then a 10-foot wall which would block out light.

·       The front roof lights are not in keeping with the Conservation Area.

·       The applicant had offered blinds to prevent light pollution but there is no guarantee that would continue with future occupants.

The following Members asked point of clarification:

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

In response to the points of clarification Parish Councillor advised:

·       The property was listed in Pirton Neighbourhood Plan as a building of local interest, it is a non-listed important building of local interest.

·       The floor plan was 40 square meters, but with the outbuilding it is 46 square meters, the new plan was a 75% increase on existing area.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Burleigh for her presentation and invited Councillor Claire Strong to speak against the application. Councillor Strong thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       She supported the objections of the Parish Councils to this application.

·       The extension covered a larger footprint than the existing outbuilding, most of the extension is on the other side of the outbuilding and covered a large area of the garden, bordering No 7.  

·       The application was in a Conservation Area, but there was no published report from the Conservation Officer.

·       The report suggested the extension complied to point 3.1 of the Pirton Neighbourhood  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77