Advertising
 
Posted by: John Brace | 26th January 2011

Planning Committee – 25th January 2011 – Part 2 – Item 4 – APP/10/01315 – 2 Target Road, Heswall – Demolition of existing dwelling and attached garage. Construction of replacement dwelling and detached garage

The committee then proceeded to consider item 4 – APP/10/01315 -2 Target Road, Heswall – Demolition of existing dwelling and attached garage. Construction of replacement dwelling and detached garage.

There was a qualifying petition. The petitioner Paul Foley of 1 Target Road, Heswall (which is adjacent to no 2) addressed the Committee. He told the committee about his concerns over privacy in the front and rear gardens as the new building would be two stories. He had bought his property for privacy. He would also lose sunlight and felt it was inconsistent with previous applications where 2 storey dwellings had been refused. He also cited other similar planning applications refused and felt it was not uniform. Approving this application would lead to a greater density of development and didn’t match.

Trevor Earp, the agent then addressed the committee about the concerns raised by the petitioner. He referred to the officer’s report and stated there were other 2 storey buildings in the area. In the Design and Access statement a number of these were referred to. One had living accommodation on the 1st floor. There had been a 2007 application for a replacement dwelling in Broad Lane which the replacement had had with a 8m ridge height. He said officers had commented on the simple attractive design in keeping with the scale and design of the area. Regarding overlooking the front overlooks the road and although the rear overlooks the rear garden this falls within guidelines. He asked the committee to see the merits which the officers have.

Cllr Elderton said it would be helpful to see the existing elevation and proposed elevation. A photo was handed round which agitated the agent so much he interrupted the meeting by heckling.

Cllr Elderton was told there was a difference in metre in the ridge height. Cllr Realey pointed out the increased should be 15%. Cllr Kenny referred to the claim of the petitioner that similar applications were refused. An officer answered that they were not aware of refusals in the immediate area.

Cllr Mitchell asked the officers to point out the elevations. Cllr Elderton asked them to relate the difference in ridge height to the impact.

Cllr Mitchell asked for any further comments or questions. There were none. Cllr Mitchell proposed approval, seconded by Cllr Kenny. 11 councillors voted for. Cllr Peter Johnson voted against.


Categories