Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requests Members to consider the application (15/06291/FU) for construction of a detached house and garage in the garden of the existing house, demolition of existing garage and outbuildings and construction of a new carport for the existing house.

(Report attached)

Members had visited the site earlier in the day and plans and photographs were shown to Members during the meeting.

This application had been brought to Plans Panel in response to a request from Councillor Rachael Procter who wished the Panel to consider the impact the proposal would have on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Members were informed that the site was located within the Thorner Conservation area.

The applicant sought permission to erect a detached house with 2 double bedrooms, a single bedroom and garage in the rear garden of the existing property which fronts onto Main Street. The application was in principal a backland infill development. Members were informed that access to the proposed site would remain the same and that 2 trees on the access would be maintained.

An artist’s impression of the proposed dwelling was shown at Panel.

Members were informed that 1 and 2 Prospect Court and 38 Main Street had expressed concerns in respect of missing information and plans, the impact on the conservation area, trees and neighbouring amenity, application property and in respect of overlooking.

Members were informed that the application site it set slightly above 2 Prospect Court as the garden sloped downwards. The Panel were also informed that 2 Prospect Court had side windows to the lower floor.

Members were reminded of a similar application at 58 Main Street which was refused but appealed and allowed.

The residents of 1 and 2 Prospect Court attended the Panel and informed Members of their concerns which included the following:

·  The proposed dwelling would cause deep shadowing over house and patio most of the day

·  The proposed property would overlook 2 Prospect Court because of the height  difference

·  Bats roost in the trees

·  Erode the character of Thorner

·  Fails planning rules

Members were informed that relevant points of the report mentioned was included within the Panel report at points 10 – 10.20.

Mr Percy the applicant attended the Plans Panel and informed the Panel that he had lived at the property since 1987. In response to Members questions he informed them that Prospect Court had been built about 1991-2 and prior to building had been an apple orchard.

He explained to the Members that his children had now all grown up and left and that he and his wife wanted a house that was more practical. They were attached to the village and wished to remain there.

In response to questions from Members Mr Percy informed the Panel that all his neighbours had been made aware of the planning application and that he had taken advice given by planning officers who had been very thorough and dealt with all issues.

The officer advised the Panel that due regard had been taken to overshadowing in the patio area and would have some impact but not to a degree to refuse the application. It was noted that the applicant had provided detailed plans of the sun orientation and shading including that by boundary trees.

Members noted that a bat survey had not been submitted as not made aware that bats roost in the trees.

The Panel noted that all reports should have detailed information included in all reports.

RESOLVED - To grant permission to the application in accordance with the officer recommendations.