Cllr Johnson, having previously declared a prejudicial interest in this item, left the room during its consideration. The committee then moved onto item 5 which was another greenbelt application involving remodelling. The application would lead to an increased height to a two storey flat roof. There had been a late objection from the Heswall Society … Continue reading “Planning Committee – 25th January 2011 – Part 3 – Item 5 – APP/10/00999 – Melrose 90 Oldfield Road, Heswall – Proposed extension and remodelling of the existing house and associated landscaping works”
Cllr Johnson, having previously declared a prejudicial interest in this item, left the room during its consideration.
The committee then moved onto item 5 which was another greenbelt application involving remodelling. The application would lead to an increased height to a two storey flat roof. There had been a late objection from the Heswall Society regarding floodlights. The Chair pointed out this had been made on the site visit. Cllr Elderton asked to the elevation and if it was out of character? He said it was more in keeping although expressed concern regarding overlooking from the balcony. The floodlight was going to be at a low-level for ambience. Although commercial properties required permission for floodlights, residential properties did not.
The answer given by an officer was that the floodlights were not considered to be development, therefore permission wasn’t required. Cllr Mitchell was also concerned about the balcony and stated that the new building was narrower. He said the architect had given a good spiel at the site visit and had used the site visit to promote his business.
It was put to the vote. Cllr Mitchell proposed the application be approved, Cllr Salter seconded the item. 9 councillors voted for, Cllr Hayes and Cllr Keeley voted against. The application was approved.
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.