Councillor Cambell moved to the public seats before the start of consideration for this item.
Mr Saunders outlined the details of the application to members and explained that the primary planning considerations for the application were design and impact on neighboring amenity. Councillor Sorba asked about daylight and sunlight. Mr Saunders explained the technical measurements and the assessment of this application shows that it is not harmful.
The Committee then heard a verbal presentation from Mr McIlroy, the architect representing the applicant for the application.
Councillor Walsh raised the issues of height and materials. Mr Saunders emphasised that permission would be conditional on samples of materials to be provided to officers.
Councillor Paschoud asked for the reasons for demolition of the building. The
architect explained that the building is not new and has no contribution to the
The Committee then heard a verbal representation opposing the development from Mr David Jones representing three objectors. Reasons for objections were outlined as: harmful to heritage assets; Harmful to living conditions of neighbors, harmful to the street scene. Loss of residential garden space.
Councillor Campbell spoke under standing orders against the application, focusing on the quality of the proposal. Mr Saunders explained that the loss of garden space on this occasion is considered to be acceptable.
Councillor Bernards questioned the availability of parking within 200 meters, and the issues of disabled access to parking closer to the site. Mr Saunders clarified that there is a capacity for overnight parking particularly at George Street, and the Church Terrace. He added that disabled people who are blue badge holders can apply to the council for a disabled parking only bay to be marked. Councilor Walsh stated that even if there is parking, still people park their car in the street Cllr Walsh questioned the design quality and whether it was of the highest quality.
Councillor Paschoud raised her concerns about design and overlooking. Mr
Saunders explained a condition related to obscuring certain windows.
Councillor Sorba asked to which extent can personal tastes of like or dislike of a design be discussed and taken into account. Mr Saunders explained that significant weight is given to planning merit on new homes in the borough which is in line with the principle of national and local policy. Chair indicated that it is difficult to say what is good or not and the recommendation from planning will help.
Councillor Walsh stated that the proposed development was not of sufficient design quality and should also be refused based on issues of: harm to the living conditions, harm to the privacy; loss of day light and sunlight, by virtue of its bulk and relationship to the neighbouring boundaries, resulting in an overbearing impact. He motioned to reject the officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission.
This was seconded by Councillor Paschoud.
Mr Saunders clarified reasons for refusal based on issues which were raised by
members of the committee. Members confirmed the harm identified was less than substantial but was not outweighed by the wider public merits.
Members voted as follows:
FOR OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: None
AGAINST OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Abdeslam Amrani (Chair), Councilors
Peter Bernards, Jacq Paschoud, Luke Sorba, James-J Walsh
ABSTAINED: Councilor Sorba
Resolved: That planning permission be refused in respect of application