Issue - meetings

REFUSED

Description of application – Construction of a 4 bedroom two storey dwellinghouse including integral open fronted garage and cycle parking to land r/o 54 Lubbock Road.

The Development Management Area Team Leader (East) reported that further representations had been received from the applicant in support of the application. These had been circulated to Members and were tabled at the meeting.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. The following responses were given to Members’ questions:

-  the development would include various eco measures and electric vehicle charging points, which could be conditioned.

-  the proposed dwelling was not considered to be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

-  the statement that the development in the manner proposed was ‘not readily comparable’ to the adjoining sites was a correct reflection.

Oral representations in objection to the application were also received at the meeting.

Oral representations from visiting Ward Member Councillor Mark Smith in objection to the application were also received at the meeting. Councillor Smith thanked officers for the very thorough report provided. The applicant was also thanked for allowing him to visit the application site the previous day. It was noted that what the applicant had already done on site in terms of bringing a locally listed building back to life site was appreciated. The issues were that the application was located within a Conservation Area, and it was a locally listed building – if the development was in a different area it may be considered to be acceptable. The original plot had gradually been reduced over the years, and another property on the site would be disproportionate. Councillor Smith said he agreed with some of the comments made in relation to neighbouring properties being overlooked and the impact on the Conservation Area – consideration needed to be given as to how the area would be affected both now and in the future. On balance he felt the application should be refused.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning.