Public Speakers:      Mr C. Humphris, Climping Parish Council

                                                Cllr Mr Worne, Ward Member

            CM/16/20/PL – Variation of Condition 2 imposed under CM/64/19/PL to substitute House Type F floorplans & House Type F elevations, Langford, Horsemere Green Lane, Climping

            The Planning Team Leader presented this report, together with a written officer report update which advised that comparative plans had been submitted to aid identification of the differences between the approved scheme and what was now being proposed; additional objections received; and officer comment.  Members were advised that Condition 2 should be amended to note that the Comparative House Type F1 Floor Plans and Elevations should refer to Revision B rather than Revision A.

            The Committee was advised that, following approval of Planning Application CM/64/19/PL for 9 dwellings in March 2020, the only change that was being sought  was the siting of one dwelling, changes to the roof and the addition of a bedroom to a 3 bed unit.  The footprint would be reduced and, whilst the bulk of the roof would increase, the dwelling would be taken back from the boundary and so would not be overbearing.  Velux windows had been introduced to the roof to prevent overlooking.  The proposal was recommended for approval.

            Members considered the application and concerns were raised that the application had previously been approved and the amendments now being put forward were an attempt to change that.  Comment was made that the quality, design and increase in height would have a detrimental impact on the residents in Apple Tree Walk.  The Planning Team Leader advised that the increase in height was not significant and the dwelling would be set back further into the plot and so would not be overbearing.

As a suggestion was put forward that the matter should be deferred as it was felt it should be readvertised, officer advice was given that this application had been subject to full consultation.  When subsequent amendments came in on any application, officers had to take a view whether to reconsult and, in this instance, a clarification plan only had been received to illustrate the difference in roof height and there was therefore no obligation to reconsult with the Parish Council.  The usual process had been adhered to absolutely so there was no reason to readvertise.

 The Group Head of Planning urged Members to concentrate on the changes between what had previously been approved and what was being proposed.  The roof ridge had been moved away and was less deep; the windows were to non habitable rooms and would not be seen and so the impact of the proposal would actually be less than what had previously been approved.

However, the Committee did not accept the officer recommendation to approve and

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

“The changes to plot 8 will, by virtue of the increase roof height, result in an overbearing and unneighbourly to the property to the rear in Apple Tree Walk, in conflict with Policy DM1 of the Arun  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140