The Committee considered an application for the proposed
erection of a ground and first floor side and rear wrap-around
extension with pitched roofs to match existing at 31 Georgina
Reason Why Being Considered by Planning
The application had been referred to Planning Committee at
the request of Councillor Alan Amos.
The report set out the background to the proposal, the site
and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies,
planning history and representations and consultations where
The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper
which related to comments from the applicant on the
The information was presented as set out by the Corporate
Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a
powerpoint presentation for the
The Planning Officer provided context with regard to the
withdrawn application, pre-application enquiry and the current
application as outlined at paragraph 5.1 of the report. The current application had been designed to
mitigate the concerns with regard to the previous
There had been no one registered to speak on the
Key Points of Debate
Members considered the
proposal an overdevelopment of the site which was unsuitable for
this property and the area.
Officers were of the
opinion that whilst the proposed extensions were substantial, it
was felt that the site was significant enough for it not to be
Members considered the
proposal as a complete rebuild rather than an
extension. It was considered that if
approved it would set a precedent for the area as it would change
the character of the street.
Officers in their
assessment of the application recognized that the decision is
finely balanced but considered that on balance the impacts of the
proposal would not be to such a detrimental level as to warrant
refusal of the application.
proposal to be minded to refuse the application had been made and
this was seconded on the grounds that it would impact on the
character of the area, would be visually intrusive to the
streetscene and was overdevelopment due
to the size, mass and bulk of the proposed extensions.
If ‘Minded to Refuse’ the Legal Team Manager
stated that the application would need to be referred back to the
next available meeting in accordance with the current adopted
There being no further points made the Chair asked the
Legal Team Manager to request the voting of each Member of the
Committee who were eligible to vote.
Following the recording of the votes the proposal was deferred
minded to refuse for the reasons set out above as
For - 9
Against - 0
Abstentions – 0
Contrary to Officer recommendation it was:
RESOLVED: That the Committee is minded to
refuse planning permission on the following grounds:
Impact on character
of the area;
Concerns that the
proposed extension is incongruous and is a visually intrusive
addition to the streetscene;
due to the size, massing and bulk of the ...
view the full minutes text for item 66.