Agenda item

(Councillors Bunting and McDonough-Brown took no part in the discussion or decision-making of the application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 19th September when it had originally been considered.)

            The Chairperson informed the Committee that a second request to speak had been received on behalf of Mr. Johnston, an objector, citing exceptional circumstances. He advised that the objector had already made a presentation at the Committee Meeting on 19th September. The Committee agreed not to receive the deputation.

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 19th September, given the issues which had been raised regarding the first floor front extension not complying with the Malone Conservation Area Guidelines, it had agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable potential reasons for refusal to be outlined for consideration in an amended report.

            The case officer provided an overview of the addendum report and highlighted the inclusion of the following potential reason for refusal:

1. The proposed first floor front extension is contrary to paragraph 5.2.47 of A Design Guide for the Malone Conservation Area in that, it would, if permitted add another storey to an original single storey attached garaged at an Inter-War residence which would result in harm to the Malone Conservation Area.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, shadow tests had been submitted by the agent who had also suggested the following:

·        the study concluded that the proposed extensions would have a minor impact in general on the gable wall of 12 Broomhill Park and an insignificant impact on the kitchen window of 12 Broomhill Park, which had been the subject of this objection.

            She advised that the following further objections had been received from Strategic Planning, that the proposal was contrary to:

·        Addendum to PPS 7 -  Loss of Light / Overshadowing;

·        Addendum to PPS 7 - Dominance; and

·        PPS6 and A Design Guide for Malone Conservation Area.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as set out in the Late Items Report Pack. 

            The case officer advised that although a possible reason for refusal had been outlined in the report, the recommendation remained that the application should be approved.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Hussey and

            Seconded by Councillor Hutchinson,

That the Committee, agrees to refuse the application based on the reason for refusal outlined in the case officer’s report, in that the proposed first floor front extension is contrary to paragraph 5.2.47 of ‘A Design Guide for the Malone Conservation Area’ (DGMCA) in that, it would, if permitted, add another storey to an original single storey attached garaged at an Inter-War residence which would result in harm to the Malone Conservation Area, together with the additional reasons for refusal:

·        the first floor front extension is contrary to Paragraph 5.2.32 of the DGMCA as the extension is to the front of the building and not the rear wall; and

·        the first floor front extension is contrary to Paragraph 5.2.32 of the DGMCA as it adversely affects the visual and physical primacy of the original building’s three dimensional form;

Both of which would also result in harm to the Malone Conservation Area.

On a vote by show of hands 7 Members voted for the proposal and 5 against and it was declared carried.

            The Committee also agreed that a report be submitted to the Committee meeting in November regarding planning guidance on the practice for deferring planning applications for potential reasons for refusal and that the Design Guide for the Malone Conservation Area be circulated to the Members of the Committee.