Agenda item

            The Committee was informed that the application sought permission for a three storey dwelling and that the application had been referred to Committee at the request of Councillor Long.

            The Case Officer advised that there was an error, under paragraph 9.2 (h) - Policy QD 1 of PPS 7, in the report which should read: ‘it is considered that the proximity of the proposed gable will have a negative impact on the residential amenity of the adjacent properties 1, 3 and 5 St. John’s Avenue by virtue of over-dominance and loss of light. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to criterion (h) of QD 1.’

            The Case Officer also advised that there was an addition under paragraph 11.1 – Reason for Refusal, in the report which should read: ‘in that the development would cause and adverse effect on neighbouring properties in terms of unacceptable dominance and loss of light.’

            He advised that, after the agenda had been published, additional information had been received from Donaldson Planning, on behalf of the applicant, regarding the removal of the application from the agenda for reconsideration, the planning history of the site, no change in policy since the previous permission, issues already addressed by the applicant and a recent Planning Appeals Commission decision.

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of the proposal and explained that, after assessment, it had been recommended for refusal on the following grounds, that:

·        The proposal is contrary to criterion (h) of policy QD 1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 (Addendum) – Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas – in that the development would cause and adverse effect on neighbouring properties in terms of unacceptable dominance and loss of light.

            The Committee received representation from Dr. G. Lavery, representing residents, who outlined a range of objections to the proposed application which related to dominance, loss of light, inadequate planning history decisions, and car parking, together with its potential impact on the surrounding residential houses.

            Mr. D. Donaldson, representing Donaldson Planning, who acted on behalf of the applicant, clarified a number of issues which had been raised by the objector and suggested there would not be an issue of dominance, the sun path would be unaffected, and there were other similar building arrangements in the area. He recommended that the planning history of the site should be the key determining factor and suggested that the Committee approve or defer the application to allow a site visit to be undertaken.

            The Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding the alleged dominance of the proposal, agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand.

            The Committee also agreed that a copy of the Planning Appeals Commission decisions referred to in the planning case officer’s reports or late items report pack be circulated to the Committee Members in advance of the meeting, for this application and any future items.