Agenda item

Site Visit List - Applications for Planning Permission Etc for Determination by the Committee

Minutes:

The Committee considered:

 

·  A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications.

 

·  An update report by the Head of Planning attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

 

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

 

RESOLVED that, in accordance with delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the decisions list attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

 

Item No. 1

Application No. 19/04797/FUL

Site Location: 3 Scumbrum Lane, High Littleton, BS39 6JN – Erection of a single and two storey rear extension

 

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.  She explained that the agent had confirmed that the legal right of way in common is not mentioned or specified in the applicant’s deeds.

 

A neighbour spoke against the application.

 

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

 

Cllr Ryan Wills, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He expressed concern about the proposed changes to the access path which would cause harm to the amenity of the neighbouring properties.  Disabled access was also an issue.  The proposed development would lead to a “boxed-in” effect for number 1 Scumbrum Lane which would cause significant harm.

 

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

 

·  The Case Officer displayed the new line of the path that was proposed, along with the location of the gates and patio area.

·  She also confirmed the location of the boundary between the two properties.

·  The single storey element of the proposal could be built under permitted development rights.

 

Cllr Hodge thanked officers for organising the helpful virtual site visit and moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:

 

·  The proposal would have a harmful effect on the amenity of the neighbouring property and was not compliant with Policy D6. 

·  It would create a tunnel effect adversely affecting the amenity of the neighbouring property and the use of their patio area.

·  The neighbours would have to move their fence and change the access to their patio area as a result of the development.

 

Cllr Jackson seconded the motion stating that the development would be overbearing and cause harm to the outlook from the neighbouring property.

 

The Deputy Head of Planning stated that the proposed reason for refusal relating to loss of amenity was clear.  However, she advised that any actions neighbours may or may not take as the result of the development was not covered under the planning remit.  The private right of way is a civil matter outside the scope of planning and this issue could not be put forward as a reason for refusal.

 

Cllr Davis noted that the route of the path could be changed under permitted development rights in any case and the route is not defined in the deeds.  A ground floor extension could be built under existing permitted development rights.

 

Cllr Jackson was surprised that an application which inflicted so many changes on a neighbouring property was not considered to lead to a lack of amenity.  There could also be overlooking into No. 2 Scumbrum Lane caused by the raising of the floor area.  She also noted that the feature windows were large.

 

Cllr Hounsell noted that there is an extension at No.1 Scumbrum Lane.  Any development should have to ensure that there is adequate room to manoeuvre for people using the rear path and he felt that the development would lead to an oppressive tunnel view for No. 2.

 

Taking the officer advice into consideration Cllrs Hodge and Jackson accepted that the reason for refusal should solely be based on lack of amenity as the pathway is a civil matter.

 

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour and 3 votes against to REFUSE the application due to the loss of amenity caused to No. 2 Scumbrum Lane.  The proposed extension would be overbearing and would cause harm to the outlook due to the boxed in tunnel effect that would be created.

Supporting documents: