Agenda item

Change of public amenity land to residential and single-storey rear and side extension.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00147/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00147/FP seeking the change of public amenity land to residential and single-store rear and side extension.

The Planning Officer introduced the item and informed Members this application had been called in by Chells Ward Councillor, Councillor Booth. The application detailed an end terraced dwelling on a long rectangular shaped plot on the corner of a T junction. There was an SBC owned area of grass next to the property which approximately half was included in the change of use of amenity land to residential land. This would be enclosed with wooden fencing, similar to that already enclosing the property, to increase the garden size and to accommodate the extension. The extension still maintained pedestrian access.

The Chair invited Councillor Stephen Booth to address the Committee.

Cllr Booth explained the amenity land in the area contained little grass area. The resident of the property had already created a driveway on the front garden. He stated there had been no consultation with Ward Members and that planning should protect and enhance the environment with the wider community in mind.

The Chair thanked Cllr Booth for his contribution to the meeting.

The Planning Officer informed Members the main consideration was the acceptability of the change of use from amenity land to residential garden. The land was protected by policy NH6 of the Local Plan which stated development of unallocated open space was permitted when the loss was justified, and alternative spaces were available for community use. Planning Officers accepted the grass space could be used as an informal play space for children however it was a small area and was close to the road and therefore not the safest area for children to play. There were larger areas that were found and there were other smaller spaces similar in the residential area so there was deemed to be a sufficient amount of grass space.

The Planning Officer described the wooden fencing that would be used which was similar to the existing fence and other areas and would not have a detrimental effect on the street scene. The extension, which replaced an existing conservatory, was proportionate to the house, respected the character and appearance of the area and would use materials which matched the dwelling. There would be no impact on the daylight into the property, no additional bedrooms or parking spaces needed, and there would be no impact on the visibility of the junction.

A Member asked a question regarding a photo of the site showing a car parked on the amenity land, another questioned the dropped kerb. The Planning Officer advised that the owner of the car was unknown to Officers and this would be removed as the owner had no legal right to park there as it was Council owned land. The dropped kerb was used previously as an access into the back garden but was no longer in use.

A few Members asked questions regarding land sales. In response the Development Manager advised that land sale was not a planning matter therefore no details could be shared. Planning applications were sent in a weekly list to Councillors, but land sales were not included. The Local Plan has not changed on land sales and this could be discussed outside of the committee. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) advised that there was a subgroup that looked at land sales in the past which could be facilitated for new Members.

A Member asked a question regarding the footprint. The Development Manager advised that the rear extension could be built under permitted development, the main issue was the side extension. The extension was proportionate to the house and met the requirements of the design guide as well as retaining the garden area.

A few Members asked questions regarding consultation on residents. It was also suggested the land could be used for parking bays. In response the Planning Officer advised consultations only had to go to adjoining neighbours who had been consulted and there had been no objections from residents. The Development Manager reminded Members they could not determine an alternative proposal, only the proposal in front of them. He also advised that neighbours get a notification to look at the planning application and it was up to them to look at it. The neighbours had not raised any issues with things such as impact on light and there was a professional judgement that there was no substantial harm.

A Member asked a question regarding the fence and it was advised that there was a condition requiring the fence to be no more than 2m high.

Another Member believed it would have a visual aspect on the corner. She stated that on the fence there was a “do not park here” sign in front of the car parked on the land. Additionally she asked whether a tree surgeon had been out regarding a tree next to the area. The Development Manager advised that Highways had not raised any concerns and they were professional experts. In addition, the Council’s Arboricultural and Conservation Manager was involved in all land sales and had not raised any concerns regarding the tree.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00147/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons set out in the report:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1456_YPUK_P001; 1456_YPUK_P002_P2; 1456_YPUK_P003; 1456_YPUK_P004; 1456_YPUK_P005_P2; 1456_YPUK_P006_P2.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the works hereby permitted shall match the materials used in the construction of the original dwelling to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

4. The area of land shown in blue on the approved ' Site Location Plan' located to the east of the curtilage of No.62 Ferrier Road, shall be enclosed with timber fencing no higher than 2m high, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.