The report was presented by the Principal Planning Officer.

Councillor Little enquired as to the location of the windows and the light allowed into property, as it was suggested opaque windows were to be used. The Principal Planner explained the windows suggested to be used were in line and applied with the planning policy and would be situated in all non-main living areas. Councillor Little further commented that she had visited the site and this had caused her concern with regard to traffic in the area given the extra vehicles and usage to the road. It was explained that the parking spaces offered within the application met the parking standards, therefore the 10 spaces offered was within policy. Councillor Little observed that when she visited the site she noticed a number of cars were parked in the road.

Councillor Byrne queried if the property which was part of the development was an adapted property. Officers confirmed there was a pre-existing building on the development site and within the report the provision for housing was explained.

The Chair of the Committee commented on the link the development had with the Local Authority, remarking that the applicant hadn’t taken the application through appeal and therefore had listened to Members previous discussions on the application. The Principal Planning Officer explained that while it was possible for a planning refusal to be appealed it was practical for this application to be looked at via officers and the applicant and then to be brought back to committee.

Members were advised the Resident speaker had sent her apologises, however her statement has been included within the speaker booklet and circulated to Members. 

 Speaker statements were heard from:

 Councillor Muldowney, Ward Member in objection

Mark Baggoley, Agent in support.

During discussions it was enquired as to whether it was possible to refurbish the property so to keep it suited for a disability needs and to allow parking spaces suited for someone with a disability. The Principal Planning Officer explained to refurbish the property it would have to comply with building regulations and in relation to parking spaces these would be allocated slightly differently.

Members moved to the debate during which Councillor Liddiard stated he visited the property and felt it was out of the characteristics for the area, he continued by stating he was pleased to see that parking had been included as part of the application. He further stated he was disappointed that the property was not to be refurbished, as from the road the property was not visible due to imposing housing.

Councillor Little echoed Councillor Liddiard’s comments on parking, stating when she visited the site it was difficult to park as a number of vehicles were parked in the down the road.

The Chair of the Committee stated that although it was still a large development, the application would produce four new homes for four families and he felt it was a positive application.

Councillor Polley stated that it was important to remember not all disabilities are visible, and unfortunately the property was no longer fit for its purpose and appeared to be in need to be updated.

Councillor Halden stated Members first saw the application in March which they deferred, it was clear the three main concerns Members had at that meeting had been met by the applicant.

The Chair of the Committee proposed the officer’s recommendation and was seconded by Councillor Halden.

For: (5) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), James Halden, Susan Little, Terry Piccolo, Georgette Polley

Against: (3) Councillors Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Gary Byrne and Lee Watson.

Abstained (0)