Agenda item

Retention of Timber Cladding and Render to Existing Single-Storey Side Extension and Installation of Rear Door to West Facing Rear Elevation.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the retention of timber cladding and render to existing single-storey side extension and installation of rear door to west facing rear elevation and was recommended for approval, subject to a condition. 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Mr A Doig, local resident, to speak in objection to the application.

Mr A Doig noted he was speaking as a local resident, not in his role in relation to the Parish Council.  He noted he lived in an adjacent property and noted statements made by the applicant.  He noted the lane was unadopted and he noted concerns as regards DCC refuse vehicles not being able to gain access and explained he had organised the surfacing of the lane, though only two properties had contributed, with the previous occupant of the property in question having not contributed.  He added that in terms of the cladding and revisions made that he and others did not oppose the recommendations of the Design and Conservation Officer. 

Mr A Doig noted that in terms of access and other matters, including possible future use as an Airbnb, there were concerns in terms of parking on an unadopted lane causing obstruction to residents’ access and waste collection.  He noted that would impact upon the amenity of around 30 properties, many of which had elderly residents. 

He noted paragraph 42 of the report noted that permission would not be required for the side access, however, a recent similar application at Nevilledale Terrace had required retrospective permission.  He noted there should be consistency.  He proposed that the Committee reject the application if it was only for cladding, or that the application be withdrawn and resubmitted with a requirement in terms of alternative to the boundary wall.

The Chair thanked Mr A Doig and asked Mr A Hall, the applicant, to speak in support of his application.

Mr A Hall thanked the Chair and explained it was a very emotive subject and meant a lot to him.  He explained he was an experienced developer with projects as varied as skyscrapers within the UK and award-winning beach front properties, with his work receiving many accolades.  He noted personal family circumstances that led to him purchasing the property in order to be a project he would be able to rebuild with his own hands.  He explained he had thought carefully and paid attention to the materials to be used, those being of a similar age to the building.  He noted he would not attempt to circumvent planning policies, again referring to his over 25 years of experience in dealing with Planning Departments.  He noted issues in terms of the property not having sold at auction and the work to force Northern Powergrid to replace the roof and substation, and the work over a period of a year that had been undertaken with care and sensitivity. 

Mr A Hall explained he had not been aware of the conservation issues, with Percy Terrace being a mismatch of styles, adding if he had known the matter would not have reached the point where it was before Committee.  He noted that all negative comments as regards the application were attributable to one individual and untrue.  Mr A Hall noted his thanks for the kind input from the Principal Planning Officer and explained he agreed in terms of the few upgrades to help with in terms of the conservation area and design.  He noted that the current tenants were post-graduate lecturers and noted reference of other potential uses, such as an Airbnb or for use by a family member.  He concluded by asking Members to focus on the knowledge of the internal and external Officers and their comments and approve the application as per their recommendation.

The Chair thanked Mr A Hall and asked the Principal Planning Officer to comment on the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the application referred to the retention of cladding and the works relating to the door and that the issues raised relating to access, parking and refuse vehicles were beyond the remit of the application.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor C Marshall noted that clearly there was a lot of local history in terms of issues in the area, however, when looking at the application it was clear cut and in line with policy, therefore he would propose that the application be approved as per the Officer’s recommendation.  Councillor S Deinali seconded the proposal.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition set out within the report.