Minutes:
Councillor Simon Tagg spoke on this application.
Amended recommendation proposed by Councillor Mark Holland and seconded by Councillor Paul Northcott.
The application was a resubmission of 21/54/FUL which had been refused by this Committee at the meeting held on 30 March, 2021.
Councillor Mark Holland made reference to the three grounds on which the previous application had been refused. Officers had stated that the dimensions of the proposed extension had been reduced. This amounted to 20cm off the front and 19cm off the side and Councillor Holland was not convinced that the first reason for refusal on the previous application, relating to size and massing had been addressed.
Councillor Holland stated that he would be interested to hear other Members’ views regarding the second reason for refusal. That was in relation to encroachment into the root protection area of a highways tree. The Council’s Landscape Officer’s view was that the revised application plans were now acceptable.
The third reason for refusal of the previous application was for lack of parking spaces. Councillor Holland pointed out that in March, reference was made to the internal dimensions of the garage being 2.4m by 5.2m. However, the Manual for Streets asked for 3m by 6m to accommodate a parked vehicle. Therefore the garage could not count as a space. In the previous application, the Highways Authority objected to the garage being counted as a parking space on the grounds of the dimensions. Councillor Holland asked to see drawing P02 in its unrevised state and drawing 593.01 of the original application as they gave different dimensions.
Elaine Moulton showed that plans and a photograph of a vehicle inside the garage with the door open. It was physically possible to park a car. The two plans requested by Councillor Holland did have different dimensions. The photograph showed the garage being narrower in the centre which was not reflected on the plans.
The Chair asked if the guidance spoke of parking spaces for a particular type of vehicle, for example four door or simply as a parking space. Elaine Moulton stated that, given the dimensions given by the Highways Authority, the garage would appear to be a generous parking space, although the garage would not accommodate a larger vehicle. The Council’s Head of Planning and Development, Shawn Fleet advised that paragraph 8.3.41 of the Manual for Streets referred to parking in garages and mentioned dimensions of 3 by 6m for a garage. However, many Authorities now recommended a minimum size as desirable.
The garage was one of three spaces at the property so therefore, any larger vehicle could park in one of the outside spaces.
The Chair referred back to the size and massing of the extension and asked officers for the size in terms of square metres of the new proposal as opposed to the previous proposal.
Elaine Moulton confirmed that the proposed extension that was refused would have increased the volume by 61% and the proposal was now 57.5% therefore a reduction of 2.5%. In terms of volume it was similar but in terms of appearance it was more subordinate.
Councillor John Williams asked to see the plan indicating the ‘building lines’ for the area which showed that the furthest most corner of the extension did not extend forward of the building line.
Councillor Holland moved refusal on the grounds of size and mass as it was still unacceptably large.
Resolved: That the application be refused on the grounds of unacceptable
design and massing resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the area.