The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licencing is enclosed.

A copy of the late representations received had been circulated in advance of the meeting regarding applications 141471/FO/2024, 141724/FH/2024 and 141983/FH/2025.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2025.

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2025 as a correct record.

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered a report that proposed the erection of a three storey detached dwellinghouse (four bed) with associated car parking and landscaping.

Seventeen letters had been received from local residents, fifteen objecting to the proposal, while two welcome the inclusion of bat/bird boxes into the scheme. The main concerns raised included the size and location of the dwelling, the potential to exacerbate existing drainage issues, impact on existing ecological features and landscaping, the impact on the existing on-street parking arrangements, residential amenity and pedestrian/highway safety.

This application was deferred at the Committee meeting held on 20 February 2025 to enable members of Committee to undertake a site visit in order to understand the nature of the proposed site and the condition of the land.

An objector spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he had welcomed the Committee visiting the site. He commented that the proposal was for a self-build development that would cause significant disruption to neighbouring properties for a number of years. He made reference to the issues of car parking and congestion on the street which would make access to the build site difficult and potentially dangerous. He commented that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the local ecology. He said the overriding objection to the proposal was the impact this would have on flood risk in the area. He said that due to the topography the site currently provided a natural sump to the flooding that regularly occurred in Fog Lane Park and the loss of this site would exacerbate the issues experienced in regard to flooding.

The applicant addressed the Committee and said that the application was subject to positive preplanning dialogue with the Planning Department. The proposal was for a self-build family home of a high quality design. He said the proposal was wholly consistent with the Local Core Strategy and National Planning Framework. He reiterated that the Highways Department, United Utilities, the Environment Agency, Neighbourhood Team Leader (Arboriculture) and Flood Risk Management Team were satisfied with the proposal. In regard to the objections articulated in relation to access he stated that access to the site would be via a 4.79 metres wide driveway off Essex Avenue. This width of driveway was comparable with others seen on Essex Avenue and was wider than that associated with the new house approved next to no. 3 Essex Avenue, which was 3.45 metres wide. In relation to flooding, he said that the Council’s Flood Risk Management Team had assessed the application and concluded that the current flood risk was primarily from water flowing down the road from the direction of Fog Lane, rather than from the proposed site and that the drainage of the highway was the responsibility of the Council as Highway Authority. He said that the provision of a Sustainable Drainage System would ensure all surface water was managed within the site. He further reiterated that the Flood Risk Management Team had stated that it would be unreasonable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered a report that proposed the erection of part single part two storey side and single storey rear extension together with rear roof dormer to create additional living accommodation. The property was not listed, nor was it located within a conservation area.

Eight neighbouring dwellings were notified of the proposed development, and nineteen letters of objection were received with additional correspondence from three Councillors. The key issues that were raised were concerns relating to the proposal’s loss of light, loss of privacy, loss of parking and character of the area including overdevelopment of the site and possible use as a HMO. These were fully considered within the main body of the report.

An objector spoke in opposition to the application. She said that the scale and nature of the proposed extension would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and was wholly out of keeping with the existing neighbouring properties. She said the scale of the proposed extension was excessive and would reduce natural sunlight to neighbouring properties; the proposal would also result in added stress to the ageing utilities infrastructure; and increase on-street car parking in the local area. She stated that the disruption caused during the construction phase would also have a detrimental impact on neighbours.

The Planning Officer stated that the application had been revised to address the concerns raised by the Planning Authority, noting that revisions had been made to the proposed single storey rear extension reducing the rearward projection from 6m to 3.65m in line with Council policy. He said that side extensions were an accepted solution to provide additional accommodation in areas of traditional semi-detached houses of this type. He said that if the Committee were minded, a condition could be included to ensure that the property was only ever used as a single residential dwelling house and not a house in multiple occupation (HMO).

Councillor Gartside said that she welcomed and supported the additional condition suggested by the Planning Officer regarding the use of the property, noting the concerns raised by residents.

Councillor Riasat moved the recommendation to approve the application, subject to the inclusion of an additional condition to ensure that the property was only ever used as a single residential dwelling house and not a house in multiple occupation (HMO).

Councillor S. Ali seconded the motion.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the application, subject to the inclusion of an additional condition to ensure that the property was only ever used as a single residential dwelling house and not a house in multiple occupation (HMO).

[Councillor Chohan declared a prejudicial interest in this item and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item.]

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered a report that sought permission for the erection of a part-single / part-two storey side and rear extension and rear dormer to provide additional living accommodation for a family dwellinghouse. As such, the application sought to amend the extension and dormer as built on site, The property was not listed, nor was it located within a conservation area.

Seven neighbouring dwellings were notified of the proposed development, and one letter of objection was received. The key issues that were raised were concerns relating to the proposal’s impact upon the visual and residential amenity of the area. These were fully considered within the main body of the report.

The application had been brought before the Planning and Highways’ Committee for consideration as the applicant is a relative of an elected member.

The Planning Officer stated that the if the Committee were minded, a condition could be included to ensure that the property was only ever used as a single residential dwelling house and not a house in multiple occupation (HMO).

No objector was present.

The applicant spoke in support of the proposal. She said that the application was to deliver a family home and that the concerns expressed in relation to the first floor bathroom window had been addressed through the condition that requiring this window to be obscurely glazed. She concluded by asking the Committee to endorse the Planning Officers recommendation and approve the application.

Councillor Richards moved the recommendation to approve the application, subject to the inclusion of an additional condition to ensure that the property was only ever used as a single residential dwelling house and not a house in multiple occupation (HMO).

Councillor S. Ali seconded the motion.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the application, subject to the inclusion of an additional condition to ensure that the property was only ever used as a single residential dwelling house and not a house in multiple occupation (HMO).

[Councillor Chohan declared a prejudicial interest in this item and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item.]