Issue - meetings

It was proposed by Councillor Keith Budden and seconded by Councillor Robert Redfern:

“That the decision be split as set out in the Committee Report.”

Upon being put to the vote, all 13 Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the decision be split as follows:

That the erection of a single storey front extension be refusedfor the following reasons:

1.    It is considered that the proposed front extension by reason of its flat roof design and scale would appear as an incongruous form of development that does not relate well to this non-designated heritage asset. Furthermore, with the lack of alterations along the adjoining row of terraced properties, this would only serve to highlight the proposal as a discordant form of development and as a result would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 197 and Section 12 (Achieving Well-Designed Places) of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM33 and DM35 of the Development Management DPD.

In the second instance:

That a single storey rear extension and excavation of land to create a sunken patio to the rear be grantedsubject to the following conditions:

1.    Standard 3 year timescales.

2.    Development in accordance with amended plans.