Issue - meetings

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Head of Planning and Development.

Mr Rudd, an objector, Mr Fowler, for the applicant, and Councillors Springett and Cuming (Visiting Members) addressed the meeting.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, the Committee agreed to refuse permission.  In making this decision, Members felt that the proposed replacement dwelling, by virtue of its massing, bulk and scale, would result in an overly large and prominent form of development which would be uncharacteristic and would not sit comfortably within the street-scene, causing significant visual harm to the street-scene contrary to paragraphs 17, 56, 57, 58 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.  Also, the proposed replacement dwelling, by reason of its siting, extent of glazing and balcony areas, would result in significant harm to the residential amenity of occupiers of ‘Downs View’ through overlooking and loss of privacy, contrary to paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.  The proposed replacement dwelling, by virtue of its massing, bulk and scale would result in an overly large and prominent form of development which would be uncharacteristic and would not sit comfortably within the street-scene, causing significant visual harm to the street-scene contrary to paragraphs 17, 56, 57, 58 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

2.  The proposed replacement dwelling, by reason of its siting, extent of glazing and balcony areas, would result in significant harm to the residential amenity of occupiers of ‘Downs View’ through overlooking and loss of privacy, contrary to paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Voting:  8 – For  4 – Against  0 – Abstentions