The application had been referred for the committee’s consideration by Ward Member Cllr Aspinell due to concerns over limited parking, limited access, overdevelopment of the site and diminishing of the street scene.

The application related to the demolition of an existing derelict side store and the construction of a single storey rear extension and part two storey part single storey side extension to form a new dwelling. The proposal differed from the last application in the following ways:

·         the proposed property had been altered from a detached property to a terraced property joining the existing pair, to become a staggered terrace

·         rotation of ridgeline by 90 degrees to correspond with donor property

·         alterations to fenestration layout and design

·         alterations to garden

·         internal alterations – previously a ground floor room was marked as bedroom/study, now marked living room

In view of the meeting having to take place via the internet, resident Mr  Short’s representation was read aloud by the Chair followed by a statement by the applicant’s agent, Mr Sosanya.

Ward Councillors Cllr Aspinell and Cllr Mrs Davies spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Mynott MOVED and Cllr Fryd SECONDED that the application should be REFUSED and following a debate Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Fryd, Jakobsson, Kerslake, Keeble, Laplain, McCheyne, Morrissey, Mynott, Miss Sanders, Tanner and Mrs Tierney (11)

AGAINST: None

ABSTAIN: None

Cllr Mrs Fulcher was unable to log into the meeting at this point and was  therefore unable to vote.

Members RESOLVED to REFUSE the application against officer recommendation citing the following reasons:

·           The development would be an overdevelopment of the site as it would be cramped within the plot, would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area and out of character with the surrounding pattern of development in conflict with local plan policy CP1 (i) and (iii)

·           There would be insufficient off-street parking provision for the two properties leading to further on-street parking to the detriment of the surrounding highway network,  in conflict with Local Plan policy CP  (v).