Agenda item

91 Grantham Road, Bottesford, Nottingham

Applicant:      Mr Ross Whiting

Location:        Eastcote, 91 Grantham Road, Bottesford

Proposal:       Proposed Garage (Part Retrospective) (Resubmission of 17/00047/FUL)

(a)  The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that: there are no updates to the report.

(b)  Mrs Shelagh Woollard, on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that:

• the garage is the same size and in  the same place as the one previously refused. The only difference is that conifers rather than laurels have been planted on the southern side.
• the strong building line has not changed.
• the garage protrudes 10 metres in front of this building line.
• the conifers are already above the height of the ground floor windows.
• the trees and hedgerows were conditioned to remain but were grubbed up.
• visible from the road, farm track and service road.
• would not improve the character and quality of the area.
• roof not covered in sedum. Covered in astro turf instead.
• Unauthorised development.
• does not comply with the NPPF.

(c)  George Machin, agent on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

• the garage is not visible as there is planting round it.
• lower than a boundary fence.
• a larger garage would have been visible.
• it will have a sedum roof when fully complete.
• the garage is a significant distance away from neighbouring properties  and modest in comparison to the house.
• the garage is necessary and needed. Providing essential storage for lawnmowers, bbq’s etc.
• libellous reports by the immediate neighbours.
• the application is retrospective as the applicant thought it was covered by permitted development rights.

A Cllr commented that there have been numerous applications and enforcement cases for this property and wanted clarification that this would be the end of it.

George Machin responded that the most recent enforcement case had been quashed and there had been a lot of complaints which have been unwarranted or exaggerated.

A Cllr asked George Machin to go on the record that it wouldn’t come back to committee again.

Mr Machin agreed.

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services reminded Members of the enforcement history.

A Cllr commented that it was planning by stealth. There have been numerous complaints and not just from the immediate neighbours. The drains are higher so that water couldn’t get in them. Concerned regarding access to plot 2. They could take away trees when they like. An orangery was built on the back which was retrospective as they had assumed it was permitted development again.

Cllr Greenow proposed to permit that application as there is no planning  reason to refuse.

Cllr Posnett  seconded the proposal.

A Cllr asked for more information on the previous appeal.

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services noted that it is in the report. Differences in the size of the garage, screening  and it is set further back.

A vote was taken.  4 Members voted for permit and 2 voted against permit. There were 5 abstentions. Cllrs Cumbers, Higgins, Holmes, Botterill and Baguley asked for their abstentions to be recorded. Cllr Chandler and Faulkner asked for their votes against to be recorded.

Determination: PERMIT, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

For the following reasons:

The proposal is now considered to overcome the reasons for refusal in the initial application and the appeal decision. The reduced scale of the proposed garage and the subsequent development of the site makes the proposal acceptable. The further positive aspect of the development providing secure off street parking provision also weighs in favour for the development.