Agenda item

Change of use from Drinking Establishment (Class A4) to 3 residential units (Class C3) comprising two 4 bedroom dwellings and one 5 bedroom dwelling with associated parking and garden areas.

Change of use from Drinking Establishment (Class A4) to 3 residential

units (Class C3) comprising two 4 bedroom dwellings and one 5 bedroom

dwelling with associated parking and garden areas.

Mr Kamolofe, the applicant was due to speak in support of the application but the Chairman informed that he was unable to attend the meeting.

A number of issues arose during discussions and these are reported below:

·         Gardens too close to the caravan adjacent to the site;

·         The applicant has revised the application following original objections but some members still felt more was needed;

·         Garden separate from the house isn’t an issue;

·         Bat survey results are only valid reason for refusal;

·         No issues of loss of public house;

·         Must get the application right;

·         The application is fine as it is and should be approved.

The applicant has resolved a number of issues but there are still 3 outstanding which is why the committee has come to the decision set out below.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Jenny Hollingsbee

Seconded by Councillor Roger Wilkins and

Resolved: To defer the application to give the applicant a further opportunity to address the following recommended reasons for refusal with delegated authority given to the Chief Planning Officer to grant planning permission if the following recommended reasons for refusal are overcome:

1.            The proposed development is considered to amount to poor layout and design with the enclosed garden area for unit ‘a’ being long and narrow and set away from the unit that it is intended to serve, making it a poor standard amenity area which unlikely to be used and likely to be enclosed within a fence which would result in an uncharacteristic enclosure at the back edge of the highway. As such it is contrary to saved policy SD1 of the Local Plan Review which requires a high standard of layout and design and emerging policy HB1 of the Places and Policies Local Plan which requires development to make a positive contribution to its surroundings.

2.            The proposed development would result in poor amenity for the future occupants of the proposed dwellings through the provision of a poor external amenity space for unit ‘a’ being a long and narrow enclosed garden set away from the unit that it is intended to serve, which is not likely to be a practical usable space, as well as the basement bedroom for unit ‘b’ having a poor outlook and limited natural light. As such the proposed development is contrary to saved policy SD1 of the Local Plan Review, emerging policies HB1 and HB3 of the Places and Policies Local Plan and paragraph 127 of the NPPF, all of which seek to safeguard and enhance the amenity of future occupants.

3.            Due to the lack of an emergence survey having been carried out to fully assess the presence of bats within the site, how bats are utilising the building and to consider the impact that the proposed development will have on protected species, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that protected species will not be harmed by the proposed development. As such it is contrary to saved policy CO11 of the Local Plan Review, emerging policy NE2 of the Places and Policies Local Plan and paragraph 175 of the NPPF, which seek to conserve and enhance biodiversity through resisting development if it is likely to endanger plant or animal life (or its habitat) protected under law and/or identified as a UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species.

(Voting: For 11; Against 1; Abstentions 0)