Mrs Aston, the applicant, was present and addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Cllr Clark had referred the application for consideration by the Committee since there were concerns that policies were being interpreted subjectively rather than objectively, so that the difference between what was refused in this case had been allowed in neighbouring houses was not clear.

Cllr Ms Rowlands MOVED and Cllr Newberry SECONDED that the application be approved.

For:        Cllrs Carter, Newberry, Ms Rowlands and Trump (4)

Against:  Cllrs Barrell, Cloke, Mrs Coe, McCheyne, Morrissey, Mynott and Wiles  (7)

Abstain:  Cllr Reed  (1)

The Motion was LOST.

Cllr Cloke MOVED and Cllr Wiles SECONDED that the application be refused.

For:      Cllrs Barrell, Cloke, Mrs Coe, McCheyne, Morrissey, Mynott and Wiles  (7)

Against:   Cllrs Carter, Newberry, Ms Rowlands and Trump (4)

Abstain:   Cllr Reed  (1)

RESOLVED:  That the application be REFUSED because the proposal would result in a poorly designed and disjointed appearance at the front and rear of the house. 

Members recommended the applicant to work with Planning officers on any future design prior to submission.