Agenda item

CONTEST APPEAL

Description of application – Demolition of the existing single storey side extension and detached garage and the construction of a three-bedroom dwelling house with associated parking and landscaping on land to the side of 31 Scotts Lane.

Oral representations were received from Ward Member, Councillor Russell Mellor, at the meeting.  Councillor Mellor was a Member of Plans Sub-Committee 4 on 15 August 2019 when he proposed deferral of the application and it was subsequently deferred by Members, without prejudice to any future consideration, to increase the side space to 2 metres between the host and new dwellings.  The applicant had appealed against the Council’s non-determination of the application.  Councillor Mellor objected to the potential terracing effect and lack of amenity space to the side elevation and boundary and he urged Members to contest the appeal.

The Chairman also referred to the history of the site and his view was that the proposed development was cramped and the applicant had not taken into account the generous spatial standards in Scotts Lane and he moved that the appeal be contested.  Councillor Michael Turner agreed with the Chairman and seconded the motion.

The Development Control Manager reminded Members to consider the Council’s required increase in housing supply and the Chairman confirmed the Sub-Committee were aware of those requirements.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED to CONTEST THE APPEAL AGAINST NON-DETERMINATION of this planning application on the following ground:-

1.  The proposed dwelling house by reason of its prominent siting and lack of sufficient side space to the adjacent dwelling at No. 31 would result in a cramped development, detrimental to the spatial standards of the area and harmful to the visual amenities of the streetscene, thereby contrary to Policies 4, 8 and 37, Policy 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan and Chapter 12 ‘Achieving well-designed places' of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The vote was 7:1 to contest the appeal.