Extensions, alterations and construction of replacement garage
Minutes:
Public Participation
Dr J Eastern spoke in objection to the application
Darryl Rogers (Agent) spoke in support of the application
Cllr Stephen Gledhill, Coombe Bissett & Homington PC
The Planning Officer, Joe Richardson, introduced the report, which recommended that the application for extensions, alterations and construction of a replacement garage at Caddens, Lower Road, Homington, be approved with conditions.
It was noted that secondary access to the site was maintained, and that it was felt that the proposed works would improve the properties appearance within the street-scene.
Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, details were sought on the access to the property, where it was conformed that this would be increased from one to two points. There had been no objections from Highways, as they believed the visibility was sufficient. The proposals included parking for up to 4 vehicles.
Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.
The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Clewer then spoke in objection to the application. He noted that Homington was a small pretty village with little parking. The applicant had worked hard to try and overcome some of the objections, however he felt that the proposed extension was too big for the plot. The pictures shown did not show the development as it would be and the proposed wall did not fit in with the street scene.
Cllr Devine moved the motion of Objection against Officers recommendation, on the grounds of over development and that the property was in a conservation area. This was seconded by Cllr Britton
A debate followed where key issues raised included the scale of the extension was too large for the site, and the position of the garage to the front of the property was not appropriate and would be more acceptable if it had been positioned to the rear, where there was plenty of space, and would be more in-keeping with the rural character with the village.
The proposed development would see half of the entire site developed, whereas before it was only approximately one fifth.
Resolved
That planning permission be REFUSED, for the following reasons:
Supporting documents: