Agenda item

42 Avon Road, Melton Mowbray

 

Reference:	20/00823/FULHH
Location:	42 Avon Road, Melton Mowbray
Proposal:	Proposed two storey front, rear and side extensions to form annex and additional single storey extension to the front of existing dwelling.

 

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application.

 

It was confirmed that the presentation slide showing the previous (refused) and application side elevation of the 42 Avon Road, also showed 30 Derwent Drive.

 

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to  public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a 3 minute presentation:

 

·         Chris Ward, Objector

 

In response to Member questions, Mr. Ward advised that

 

·         Attempts to compromise had been made via a letter to the applicant on the previous application and on this application.  His suggestion to move the side boundary of the proposed extension away from his retaining wall (which would likely remove his objection to this application) had been declined.

·         For the purpose of maintaining his retaining wall he has the right to access the applicants property.

·         The proposed extension would preclude future repair and maintenance of the retaining wall.

 

The Legal Officer advised that the retaining wall was not a material planning consideration.  She highlighted that all material planning considerations were detailed in the report.

 

·         Julie Abrames, Applicant

 

In response to Member questions, Ms. Abrames advised that

 

·         Advice from a structural engineer confirmed that the proposed extension could be could be constructed and maintained without need to access Mr Ward’s property (30 Derwent Drive).

·         The proposed extension would enhance her family life.  It would provide room to accommodate her mother who required much assistance, enabling her to receive better care and more time to be spent as a family.  It would provide a bedroom for her nephews, who regularly stayed with her for respite taking the property from a 3 bed to a 4 bed).

·         The minimum 1 way travel time from her property to her mother’s property was 10 minutes but this journey was frequently longer due to heavy traffic.

·         The proposed lift was in respect of an anticipated future need of her mother.  There was no plan to engage carers and her mother would continue to receive care from her family.

 

In accordance with the Constitution, at 9 pm, there was a motion to continue the meeting beyond the 3 hour threshold and Members voted unanimously to continue the meeting.

 

The Chair read a statement on behalf of Councillor Wood, Ward Councillor.

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery advised that it was for Members to decide how much weight to attribute to the applicants personal circumstances against concerns over the design of the application.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         Members thanked officers for the comprehensive report.

·         Members had great empathy for the applicant and her reasons for the application, noting that she had addressed previous concerns

·         Members were not opposed to expansion of the applicant’s property but were not satisfied that the application design was appropriate for the surrounding area.

·         Safety concerns identified on the previous application (refused) were again raised in respect of this application, particularly in respect of the applicant’s elderly mother and nephews (fire hazard, narrow path and being on a hill).

·         It was noted that 44 Avon Drive was subject to the same size pathway, which was proposed in this application.

·         The application was contrary to Policy D1 of the Local Plan in that it represented a large intensification of the size of the property. 

·         Members highlighted the need for dialogue between the applicant and Mr. Ward and encouraged the applicant to submit a further revised application.

 

Councillor Faulkner proposed to refuse the application due to impact on the neighbouring property, inadequate design and policy D1;  the design not reflecting its surroundings.   Councillor Glancy seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED that, contrary to the officer recommendation,

 

Application 20/00823/FULHH be REFUSED for the following reasons

The proposed extension, by virtue of its width and mass would result in an adverse impact on the street scene and would not be sympathetic to the area  It would fail to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties and would be contrary to policies D1 of the Adopted Melton Local Plan.

 

(10 in favour, 1 abstention)