Agenda and minutes

Disclosure of Interests Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act 2011, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), some other registrable interest (ORI) or a non-registrable interest (NRI) in relation to any matter on the agenda. If advice is needed, Members should contact the Monitoring Officer in good time before the meeting. If any Member or co-opted Member of the Council identifies a DPI or ORI which they have not already registered on the Council’s register of interests or which requires updating, they must urgently complete the disclosure form which can be obtained from Democratic Services at any time, copies of which will be available at the meeting for return to the Monitoring Officer.

Members and co-opted Members are required in general to disclose any relevant DPIs, ORIs or NRIs at the meeting –

• Where the matter relates to a DPI they may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the room unless granted a dispensation.
• Where the matter directly relates to the financial interest or wellbeing of an ORI they may not vote on the matter unless granted a dispensation.
• Where a Member or co-opted Member has an NRI which directly relates to or affects their or a relevant person’s financial interest or wellbeing, whether they can participate in any discussion or vote on the matter or stay in the room depends on the detailed rules in paragraphs 7 of Appendix B of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure of interests orally at the meeting and they will also be recorded in the minutes.

The Chair disclosed that he had referred the application to the Planning Sub Committee for consideration due to the height and massing of the proposed development. However, the Chair informed the Sub Committee that he had not already decided on whether he was in favour or against the application and therefore was able to consider the application this evening with an open mind.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There was none.

To consider the accompanying reports by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:

Erection of single storey rear extension and two storey front extension, as well as erection of hip to gable enlargements, dormer extension to rear roof slope and two roof lights to front roof slope together with increase in ridge height of main roof in connection with conversion of resultant roof space to habitable accommodation. Associated internal and external alterations and landscaping.

Ward: Park Hill and Whitgift

Recommendation: Grant permission

Erection of single storey rear extension and two storey front extension, as well as erection of hip to gable enlargements, dormer extension to rear roof slope and two roof lights to front roof slope together with increase in ridge height of main roof in connection with conversion of resultant roof space to habitable accommodation. Associated internal and external alterations and landscaping.

Ward: Park Hill and Whitgift

The officer presented details of the planning application and in response to members’ questions explained that:

• There was a two-story front extension which would house the porch and space above, the ground floor would host the existing porch and there would be a slight protrusion to the front beyond the existing situation. There was also a first floor to the front extension that would have circulation space at the first floor, this would extend up to roof level but there would be a glazed element.

• There were no other two storey front extensions which have been granted consent in vicinity, the neighbouring property at number 34 had a front extension which saw its bay windows slightly projected beyond what was existing at the time of the 2020 application. The street scene showed a number of properties which had gable features to the front, so this type of feature was characteristic of the area and there was a mix of designs to properties in the vicinity.

• There was no specific policy regarding the building lines in the local area which would exclude the two-storey front extension as proposed.

Chirag Patelspoke in objection to the application; Simon Dilawershah spoke in support of the application and Councillor Andrew Price addressed the Committee with his view as the Ward Councillor.

The sub-committee began the deliberation, during which they raised the following points:

• The site is not located within a conservation area. It was noted that buildings have been subject alterations and extensions

• The character of the host property may not benefit from the extension  at the front of the dwelling.

• The building line would be breached, the front porch would protrude 2.2m at the first level and 2.5m with the roof overhang.

• The scheme was like previous extensions to the rear of the properties along the road.

• The property at 34 Upfield was similar to the proposed development in regard to its height and massing.
• The porch did not protrude significantly further than the property at number 34 Upfield.

• The building line was not a considered a true line.

• The proposed development was in keeping with other properties in the area.

• Upfield road had properties with a variety of frontages.

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Fraser. This was seconded by Councillor Fitzsimons.

The motion to grant the application was taken to a vote and carried with 5 Members voting in favour no Members voting against and one member abstained their vote.

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/24