Prior to the start of the meeting, the Chair explained the procedure that would be followed.  The Chair also ensured that all participants were introduced and reminded all present that the meeting was being live streamed and that there would be a recording made.  

Apologies were received from Councillor Martins.   

No disclosures of interest were made. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2023 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes from the meeting on 7 February 2023 were approved and signed.

The Planning Officer delivered her report to the committee.

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Mr Mortimer to speak against the application.

Mr Mortimer stated that he believed that the application was inappropriate, and pointed to some of the reasons why it was previously refused.  He believed it would cause harm to the appearance and character of the area and that despite having been described as an annexe was in fact a self-contained dwelling and was a back land development.  He continued to say that this would go against council guidelines.  He acknowledged the personal condition entered in to by the applicant, however believed that there was a risk that this would not be adhered to or policed and was concerned that when the named person no longer lived there it would be used as an independent dwelling and would be at risk of it being used for holiday lettings.    Mr Mortimer stated it exceeded the building height for an application of this nature.  He finished by highlighting his main reason for objecting to the development, that it would cause harm to amenities, character and appearance of the area.  He believed it was an independent residence and not an annexe, and if approved it would set an ominous precedent for the future.

The Chair thanked Mr Mortimer and asked the officer to respond to his points.

The Strategic Applications Manager agreed that an independent dwelling was not appropriate. However, this was not an independent dwelling as there was no independent access, parking, or garden and its use had been proposed for annexe use only.  The inspector had stated that this arrangement was suitable.  It would be considered unreasonable to go against an inspector’s finding without good reason.  The condition, as proposed by officers, was in order to prevent it from being used in an inappropriate manner.  The enforcement team would be able to check  to make sure it was only being used as it should be.

In relation to the discrepancy in height, the 2.5m height requirement related to permitted development for a building that would not need planning permission. With a height more than 2.5m, planning permission was required.

The Chair thanked the officer and invited the applicant, Mr Smith, to speak.

Mr Smith stated that prior to the application they had sought pre-planning advice and attempted to speak to all of their close neighbours to find out what impact it would have on them.  They also had four tree surveys carried out in order to find the best site solution for everyone.  He believed that the planning officers had sufficiently answered the questions  and concerns raised.  He emphasised that he was doing this to take care of his parents who had always taken care of him.

The Chair thanked Mr Smith.  He stated that he believed the committee should follow the advice of the inspector. He believed that the location was the only thing that was open to any debate, however the proposed location was the best  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.