Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey expressed the view that members will have noticed on their site visit that this site is a bit of a mismatch and his client does want to rectify it hence this application to try and resolve all outstanding planning issues and he has also stopped work as the officer reported so he has listened. He stated that the annexe is for Mrs Pope’s, who lives in the bungalow, carer who is also her granddaughter and this would make life so much easier for them and if members consider the annexe is too tall the roof is not complete, as seen from the photographs, and the pitch could be lowered to make it more compatible and in keeping with the existing bungalow.

Mr Humphrey made the point that there have been numerous extensions to the original bungalow and the effect of this has unfortunately eroded the original garden space, which has caused them to take the garden which was paddock between the portacabin and the annexe to give the bungalow a new garden in effect and somewhere the grandchildren can play. He advised that the existing portacabin has been on site for a number of years, previously used as a hairdresser salon and beauticians, which has now changed to a hobby/playroom and a space for Mrs Pope’s grandchildren.

Mr Humphrey stated that the applicant is happy having this as a temporary approval and it could be removed in 3 or 5 years if a temporary consent is granted for that. He advised that it should be noted that this has been in position since 2011, however, additional landscaping could be undertaken to mitigate the effects this would have when looking at it from the road.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey as follows:

·       Councillor Connor asked where does Mrs Pope senior reside at present? Mr Humphrey responded that Mrs Pope senior lives in the bungalow with her husband Ivan and her granddaughter is to move into the annexe, who is her carer.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked how many other residents are in the property? Mr Humphrey responded that he does not know the answer, he knows Ivan and Thelma Pope live in the bungalow and knows they do like to keep their children around them. He stated that there are people coming and going all time. Councillor Imafidon stated that the only reason he asked because as seen by the photographs it is quite an extensive property so if it was just to provide accommodation for Mrs Pope’s granddaughter and if she does not already live on site he would assume there would be enough room for her to live on site without the additional one-bed annexe. Mr Humphrey responded that one of the rear extensions is a swimming pool so that takes up a big space but the granddaughter wanted her own accommodation as opposed to living in the main dwelling.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Marks stated that he did visit the site and it is a mishmash of properties and he cannot see how it is going to be able to be pulled altogether.

·       Councillor Benney asked that if there is a medical need for the granddaughter to live on the premises would there be a different route for this with medical reports to support this? He stated the reason he is asking is he has undertaken a lot of caring for his parents and he sees the benefits of having somebody close by. David Rowen responded that there is no information submitted with the application to indicate that there is any particular health needs that would justify departure from usual planning policy or any exceptions to be made. He advised that if such information was to be forwarded it is not known what the position would be without receiving this information.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed that it is a bit of a mishmash of properties and she feels the same way as Councillor Benney and would like to see the application deferred to seek further information from the agent and to see how the mishmash could be rectified. David Rowen responded that the reason for refusal is not on the basis of a lack of connection between the annexe and the property, it is on the visual impact of it so he is not sure that a deferral would help with this and there is an application in front of committee today, which is for determination and his advice would be to determine the application one way or the other

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she understands what David has said and asked if this application was refused today and the agent was to resubmit an application with something to bring it into line would he get a free go. David Rowen responded that this is not a matter for or should play a part in the committee’s consideration today and he is not in a position to comment on this anyway given that there is not a future application and he is not aware of what the site history is.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that the committee needs to look at the application it has in front of it today and judge it on its merits, with the agent having listened to the comments from members so he could resubmit with more relevant information if required.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.