06
The Committee received and considered the Senior Planning Officer's report and addendum report regarding an application for the extension of a building by adding two floors to provide two 1 bedroom self-contained flats (Use Class C3) sited at 11 Southtown Road, Great Yarmouth.
The Senior Planning Officer presented the salient matters of the application to Members together with the key issues relating to the application.
The Planning Officer reported that Officers recommend that application 06/25/0258/F should be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out at Section 24 of the published Agenda Report.
There were no technical questions for officers, therefore the Chair invited Councillor Newcombe (Ward Councillor - Southtown & Cobholm) to address the Committee.
Councillor Newcombe stated that the owner and tenants of no.11B Southtown Road were unable to attend the meeting, therefore she would raise concerns on their behalf. It was stated that the approval of this application would impact on the lives of the tenants who would experience unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight due to 100% overshadowing from the proposed extension which was described as 'overbearing'. It was noted that the Committee had previously refused an application elsewhere due to loss of daylight and therefore it should be taken as a serious consideration. Additionally, Councillor Newcombe highlighted that the tenants of no.11B Southtown Road would experience a loss of privacy due to onlooking windows and a risk of noise pollution from construction. Councillor Newcombe referenced the Officers' previous point regarding the ownership of the courtyard area outside of the property and asked where lorries and building waste would be stored during construction as the applicant would not have the right to place these items on public land. It was added that if the future tenants of the proposed properties had a vehicle they would have nowhere to park is as they would not have vehicular access to the courtyard and there is no roadside parking available on this road. Councillor Newcombe concluded by reiterating that approval of this application would have an everlasting detrimental impact on the owner and tenants of no.11B Southtown Road as the extension would lead to the building being overbearing, intrusive and invasive of privacy.
There were no questions for Councillor Newcombe at this time.
The Chair hereby invited Councillor Waters-Bunn (Ward Councillor - Southtown and Cobholm) to address the Committee.
Councillor Waters-Bunn stated that there was an error in the application as the address listed is 11 Southtown Road, however this property is 11 Bridge Road. It was added that the red line on the plan within the application was inaccurate as this property does not include the roof terrace and access to the courtyard, as these areas are owned by the owner of no.11B Southtown Road. Councillor Waters-Bunn asked where future parking would be located and how materials/waste transported to and from the site as there would be no access or permitted use of the courtyard for these activities. It was explained that, should this application be approved, that the tenants of no.11B Southtown Road would be negatively impacted due to a loss of light in rooms and hallways and well as a lack of sunlight on the roof terrace rendering the area unusable throughout the year. Councillor Waters-Bunn concluded by stating that, in addition to the loss of light, the tenants of no.11B Southtown Road would be adversely impacted by noise dust and pollution should this application be approved, therefore Members were asked to refuse the application.
There were no questions for Councillor Waters-Bunn.
The Chair hereby opened the debate to allow Members to discuss the application, report and representations provided at the meeting.
Councillor Galer commented that, though there were issues with the application, this area requires regeneration and that this proposal could be a positive alternative to the current state of the site.
Councillor Freeman requested clarification on whether the applicant asked officers for pre-application advice. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that no pre-planning advice was sought from officers by the applicant.
Councillor Boyd stated that the application should not have progressed to this stage due to the lack of explanation as to where skips or delivery vehicles would be placed during construction. It was added that the loss of light for neighbouring tenants and the lack of a sequential flood risk test is concerning, therefore he would be minded to reject the application.
The Development Manager noted the concerns raised by the Ward Councillors and explained that not all concerns raised would be considered worthy as grounds for refusal, and that the Committee would have to be satisfied that the Officers' reasons for recommending refusal are sufficient. It was added that the applicant not owning the courtyard and its access would not be a sufficient reason for refusal as there are ways and means to get around this issue for a development of this size and the applicant did service notice to all land owners involved in the site and signed Certificate B.
Councillor Williamson stated that he disagreed with Councillor Galer and that this application was unacceptable overdevelopment that does not meet the needs of regeneration. Councillor Williamson moved to refuse the application as per the Officers' recommendation.
Councillor Martin stated that the loss of light and overshadowing would be a negative impact on neighbouring tenants. It was added that the bins would need to be located inside the property which would have a negative impact on the future tenants of these properties due to smells and pests. Councillor Martin seconded Councillor Williamson's motion.
Proposer: Councillor Williamson
Seconder: Councillor Martin
Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:
That application 06/25/0258 is to be REFUSED for the reasons set out at Section 24 of the published Agenda Report.