Agenda item

Person to Contact:            Development Control Manager

                                                Tel: (01452) 396783

The Development Control Manager presented an application submitted by Mr Sajid Bala for the erection of a two bed roomed chalet bungalow on land to the rear of 84, 86, and 88 Falkner Street Gloucester.  The application had been called to Planning Committee by the Ward Member, Councillor Sajid Patel on the following grounds:-

·      that the development would not be out of line with the characteristics of the area and the street

·      highly unlikely to increase any flooding in the area

·      the land had no historical significance

·      the proposed development was highly unlikely to result in any increase in crime and/or anti-social problems

·      there were sufficient on road parking spaces available in close proximity,

·      development would enhance the street area and be more aesthetically pleasing

·       Councillor Patel welcomed any new housing development in the area where demand seemed to significantly outstrip supply

Members were briefed on the main points and issues they needed to be mindful of.  The Development Control Manager recommended refusal of the application for the reasons set out in the report. 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late material which had been circulated. The document contained a letter of representation and a consultee response from Severn Trent Water.  The Development Control Manager advised that consideration of these items had not resulted in a change to his original recommendation.  There was a short adjournment whilst Members examined the late material.  Mr Bala had also provided some photographs of the site which were circulated to Members prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Mr Sajid Bala addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Bala stated that he believed the application was sound.  He addressed each of the reasons for rejection of the proposal in turn:-

·      Impact on Street scene – Mr Bala said that no two houses were the same and that the dwelling would add to the character of the street.  He pointed out that the same materials would be used as those for number 84.

·       Overshadowing of neighbours – Mr Bala disputed this by giving measurements for the distance to the nearest neighbour and from the kerbside.

·      Lack of amenity space – Mr Bala believed that the demolition of the shed would create enough amenity space.  Added to that would be a terrace area in front of the building.

Mr Bala concluded by reminding the Committee that the dwelling would provide much needed accommodation and that the proposal had the support of his neighbours and Councillor Patel.

 The Chair queried whether the amount of amenity space could be used as a reason for refusal when other properties in the area had less amenity space.  The Development Control Manager advised that the planning guidance and policy was clear on this point and that the fact that other properties had poor amenity space was not a sufficient reason to grant the application.

The Committee discussed the following matters:-

1.                     Councillor Smith stated that it was a poor application and that it would       be remiss of the Committee to allow a property to be built that had such little amenity space and an overbearing effect on other properties.

2.                     Councillor Lewis concurred with Councillor Smith’s view and said he believed the application should be refused. 

3.                     The Chair agreed that the site was constricted.

RESOLVED – that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.