Issue - meetings

(Councillors Jeff Beck and Paul Hewer declared that they had been lobbied on this item.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/02623/FULD in respect of the resubmission of a previously approved scheme for a replacement dwelling (17/03089/FULD) to provide a summer house/exercise room to the rear of the dwelling house.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Jan Giggins and Mrs Doris Colloff, objectors, and Mr John Downe, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    The Chairman notified the Committee that a member of the public was recording the meeting and asked whether any members of the public had any objections to being filmed. No objections were raised.

4.    The Chairman also notified the Committee that Mrs Giggins had submitted a request to extend speaking time to 10 minutes from the usual 5 minutes. The Chairman declined the request on the basis that this was not a major application and it would be unfair to other speakers who would have prepared shorter presentations.

5.    Lydia Mather introduced the report and update sheet to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

6.    Mrs Giggins and Mrs Colloff in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application was incomplete and invalid. The committee report was incomplete, convoluted, contradictory and incorrect. Before the Committee determined the application all Members should visit the site.

·         The Committee should reconsider the extant permission for the house.

·         Mrs Giggins advised she had also requested that her husband be registered to speak by the Planning Registration Team but this request had not been acknowledged.

(Post meeting note: The Planning Registration Team confirmed that Mrs Giggins had not submitted a request for her husband to speak.)

·         Formerly an application on the site had been approved with permitted development rights removed; this restriction should be maintained.

·         The application requested retrospective permission for the house in order to cover mistakes. A basement swimming pool had been approved under a previous permission but had not been built.

·         Approval of the application would reset permitted development rights and so encourage overdevelopment.

·         The house that had been built on the site was larger than neighbouring properties.

·         They disputed that the previous permission should have been granted.

·         The applicant had not submitted a view of the street scene with the application.

·         The applicant had ignored the conditions of previous permissions and approval of this application would reward bad behaviour.

·         The landscaping scheme had not yet been planted.

·         Restrictions should be imposed to prevent the pool building being converted into a dwelling in the future.

7.    Councillor Jeff Beck asked why the application was invalid and contradictory. Mrs Giggins stated that the application description on the planning portal only made reference to the pool house and other amendments when in fact the application was also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36