The Principal Planner presented the application and highlighted the following points:

·       The revised proposal would overcome previous concerns regarding appearance, overdevelopment of the site and impact on character of the area.

·       Recommendation for approval.

Speaker Statements were heard from:

Statement of Objection from Councillor Hooper, Ward Member

Statement of Support from Jay Hirani, Agent

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Watson asked if there was one doorway to two properties.

o   One door at the front of the property one round the side

·       Councillor Watson asked what the distance from the boundary was.

o   Approximately 1 metre

·       Councillor Watson asked if the garden was also divided.

o   Yes, lengthways with fencing.

·       Councillor Watson asked what the traffic impact would be.

o   Adequate parking

·       Councillor Watson sort more details on the characteristics of Chestnut Avenue.

·       Councillor Arnold asked are there any controls to stipulate that all internal walls must remain to avoid the properties being knocked into one.

o   Could be difficult to impose. Other legislation related to housing could restrict property.

·       Councillor Byrne was concerned about disruption in the area and asked if has been considered.

o   Yes, plans have to be agreed under conditions.

·       Councillor Redsell shared her concerns with HMOs and asked why the Local Authority didn’t stop development of the site sooner.

o   Planning can only deal with planning.

o   No justifiable reason to take enforcement action presently.

·       Councillor Polley asked if the property changed ownership would the conditions remain.

o   Yes, with the land.

·       Councillor Piccolo sort clarification on link doors.

o   Application would be needed.

o   Legal representative gave advice to the committee.

·       The Chair sort clarity on application history.

o   Due to different character.

·       Councillor Byrne sort clarification on the point

o   Due to changes made from detached to attached.

During the debate the following was highlighted:

·       Councillor Arnold would not support the plan due to design.

·       Councillor Watson would not support the application due proposal being out of character, parking issues.

·       Councillor Redsell agreed with Councillor Watson and added nobody would know if the properties were later joined from the inside.

·       Councillor Shinnick would not support the application due to parking and traffic concerns.

·       Councillor Piccolo would support the application as applications can not be decided on assumptions.

·       Councillor Liddiard would support and did not think the application is out of character.

·       Councillor Byrne agreed with Councillors Piccolo and Liddiard and would support but would like to see the two doors at the front of the property.

·       Councillor Polley noted the committee needs to focus of planning considerations.

The Vice-Chair read the officers recommendation for approval.

Councillor Liddiard seconded it.

For: (4) Councillors G Byrne, S Liddiard, T Piccolo and G Polley

Against: (5) Councillors T Kelly, P Arnold, J Redsell, S Shinnick, and L Watson

Abstained: (0)

The Chair put forward a recommendation for refusal on basis due to characteristics and overdevelopment in the area.

Councillor Shinnick seconded it.

For: (5) Councillors T Kelly, P Arnold, J Redsell, S Shinnick, and L Watson

Against: (4) Councillors G Byrne, S Liddiard, T Piccolo and G Polley

Abstained: (0)