Agenda item

            The Committee was apprised of the principal aspects of the application.

            It was noted that the application, in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, had been presented to the Committee since the applicant was related to a member of Council.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, the following points of objection had been received from residents:

·        A signed petition; 

·        Objection to the approval of the planning application on the basis that it was a business venture for rental accommodation and the impact it would have on the surrounding area and residents;

·        The dwelling would be used as a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO); and

·        Loss of light to the rear of objector’s property. 

            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 Committee received a representation from Mr. M. Marshall in objection to the application, on behalf of residents. He suggested that the applicant, Mr. S. Boyle, was not currently living in the property and might never live at the property in the future. He suggested that the development of the property was intended for profit and was a business venture of Councillor Boyle.

            He suggested that the property had been advertised ‘To Let’ for the last two months by Boyle Properties. He suggested that the design was unprecedented in the area and was typical of a property intended for a House of Multiple Occupancy and not for family use. 

            He highlighted that there had been a number of objections submitted to the Planning Department together with a signed petition from surrounding residents who had not been consulted by the applicant. He suggested further that the development would have a detrimental impact on the residents of the area and that the Committee should refuse the application to preserve the community and neighbourhood.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Craig who outlined his support for the case officer’s recommendation for approval. In relation to the objectors’ comments regarding the use of the property, he suggested that they were just assertions and the Committee should judge the application as set out in the report.  He highlighted that if the house was to be used as a HMO in the future, the applicant would be required to apply for HMO status. He suggested that the property had been in the applicant’s family for many years and had been purchased by the applicant who intended to live in it. He suggested there had been a number of similar applications that had been approved in the area.

            During discussion, the case officer clarified that:

·        the petition which had been received from the residents had 58 signatures;

·        the site was not within a HMO node; and

·        there were no record of HMO’s on the street at present.

            She advised that there were a number of two storey extensions in the area and the addition of a condition in relation to usage or ownership would not be appropriate in this case. She highlighted that any change of use to the property would be subject to application and enforcement, if required.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report.