Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Variation of condition 5 (re-worded to allow Plots 1 & 10 to be exempt from Permitted Development restrictions) of planning permission 24/02624/RM granted 17.04.2025 for Reserved Matters application for approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for outline application 22/02942/OP granted 18.09.2024 for 10 dwellings

RESOLVED: That application 25/01834/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 5 minutes 5 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer advised this application had been brought before the Committee due to it slightly exceeding the 0.5-hectare threshold, being 0.56 hectares.

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/01834/S73 supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Bryony May

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

·       The developer was seeking permission to make roof alterations to Plots 1 and 10.

·       It would be the right of the householder once the dwellings was occupied and not the developer to install dormer windows.

·       This planning application complied with policy D1 of the Local Plan and was only seeking partial relaxation of permitted development rights for two of the plots as detailed in paragraph 4.3.1 of the report.

·       This application would not have any impact on the parking concerns raised by the Committee in April 2025, as outlined in paragraph 4.3.2 of the report.

·       As this application had not been restricted under Class C permitted development rights internal conversion of the roof spaces into habitable dwellings could be undertaken without obtaining planning permission, as detailed to in paragraph 4.3.5 of the report.

·       No reason had been provided by the developer as to why they had selected Plots 1 and 10 for this variation.

·       Granting this application could set a precedent for the other householders to make similar applications for their properties, but every planning application received would be considered in its own rights.

Councillor Nigel Mason, as Chair, proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Emma Fernandes.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·       Councillor Claire Billing

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

Points raised during the debate included:

·       The Committee was required to support this application if there was not a suitable planning reason to reject it.

·       Future occupiers of the properties would have the right to internal conversion of the roof spaces into habitable accommodation without obtaining planning permission, due to the non-restriction of Class C permitted development rights in the original application.  

·       There was some concern around granting this application could then set a precedent for the other properties on the development to also request a variation to their roof space.

·       The conditions included by the Committee when this application was originally considered were added over concern about the undesirable housing mix of the properties being all 4-bed dwellings, affordability, roof extensions and increased cars and traffic.

·       Removal of permitted development rights should only be considered when there was a concern about the development rights, which was not the case with this application.

·       Members needed to accept the decision made by the previous Committee and to consider this application in its own merits.

In response to points raised during the debate, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that Members needed clear reasons for refusal of this application, otherwise there would be a prospect of an appeal.

In response to points raised during the debate, the Chair advised that if the motion was lost, he would ask for a further proposer and seconder on a motion to defer or refuse the application.

In response to points raised during the debate, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that if Members declined the recommendation, then the item would have to be deferred. 

In response to points raised during the debate, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the applicant had considered the conditions set by the previous Committee and had made this case for a variation to only two of the dwellings.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 25/01834/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.