The Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report. 

Laura Johnson, representing the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

Councillor Paul Stephen who had called-in the application outlined his reasons for calling it in which included: it would provide much needed affordable housing;  it was in-keeping with other properties and would enhance the area; the flat roof would not be visible; and it was in a sustainable location.

In response, the Planning Officer said that the reasons for refusing the application was to do with the proportions and design and their impact on the streetscene.  She noted there had been a number of revised drawings and said both she and the Council’s Urban Design advisor had worked with the applicant to provide a better design and options on how that could be achieved.  The Planning Manager stated that the application was not affordable in planning terms.

A Ward Member stated that he agreed with officers that, the application would be visually intrusive.

The Chairman invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         Aware that officers had worked with the applicant to provide an application that would be more acceptable;

·         the proposed flats would be very small;

·         considered it was acceptable as it was on a brownfield site and would not be visually intrusive;

·         the development would be an improvement on what was currently there;

·         considered the benefits of the application, outweighed any harm;

·         there was a variety of building heights in this location;

·         could see how the eaves height could have an impact; and

·         there would be significant disruption to local residents during construction.

On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Paul Stephen moved a motion to approve the application, subject to suitable conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Terry Thompson.

At this point a Member said they understood that Councillor Paul Stephen was a friend of the applicant.  Councillor Stephen stated that whilst he was an acquaintance of the applicant, he was not a friend.  He added that he would gain nothing if the application was approved.

Members debated potential reasons for approval based on the points made.

On being put to the vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

Following advice from the Senior Lawyer (Planning) the original motion to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Simon Clark, and seconded by the Chairman.  On being put to the vote the motion was approved.

Resolved:  That application 23/500931/FULL be refused as per the recommendation in the report.