Issue - meetings

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/01083/FUL in respect of Quill Cottage, Craven Road, Inkpen. The application sought permission for a replacement dwelling and was brought to Committee as a result of call-in by ward members.

2.         Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was not acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended the Committee to refuse planning permission.

Removal of Speaking Rights

3.         As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights were removed for virtual Council meetings. This right was replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

4.         The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 October 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the Remote Meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

5.         In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from the applicants. The written submission was read out by the Clerk as follows:

Applicants Representation

Clearly the Planning Officer (PO) has spent a lot of time on this but none of it in consultation with us. Despite the Committee’s recommendation there has been a refusal to engage. I’ve tried to concentrate below on responding to the main points.

Procedural Matters

The PO quotes two Appeal Cases in support of her argument but they are quite different to our application; one sites the proposed dwelling in an entirely different location to the existing and the other application proposes a property with a footprint 260% larger! We propose 10% larger

Appraisal – Principle of Development

Effectively what we’re doing is adding a floor to a bungalow. The only difference is we’re starting from scratch rather than using the old inefficient building.

Measurements and drawings have been supplied and for the most part adopted by the PO. Previously the figures were misleading to committee, giving the impression we wanted to build something far larger and grander than we do. This is not a ‘substantial house’. I’d like to draw your attention to two drawings:

·         Amended 062 A – Pro Street Scene

·         Amended 060 B – Pro Elevations

Both drawings clearly show a comparison between existing and proposed dwelling as seen from the front. We propose an extra 10% on the footprint and less than 50% increase in height.

C7 has a presumption in favour of replacement dwelling but I agree it must be proportionate. We’ve gone to great lengths to make  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27