Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer response thereto:-

Am I right in thinking that in the drawing that you have tabled it shows the new proposed building on a very similar, if not identical, footprint of the previous house and garage?

The footprint has been slightly reduced it appears from a comparison. Overall, the whole scale and mass has reduced.

Am I right in saying that the footprint of No. 10 Harold Road goes further back than this proposed building?

Number 10 has a small extension to the rear that goes slightly further back than what is proposed. The rear elevation is broadly in line with the main bulk of number but there is small element that extends further out at Number 10.

Can you confirm that this particular building is not within the Conservation Area which is the other side of the road?

Yes, this building is outside the Conservation Area but it does affect the setting of the Conservation Area and that was part of the Inspector’s consideration on the previous Appeal. Officers have assessed the potential harm to the Conservation Area and undertaken the public benefit analysis accordingly.

In the immediate vicinity there is a block of flats, a Church and a tenement, are these within the Conservation Area?

No, but they are within the sight of the Conservation Area and therefore affect its setting.

Was enough weight given by Officers to the Inspector’s remarks in producing this report and its recommendations?

In short, yes, is the answer. That was one of the many areas of consideration that was part of this application. The Officer has demonstrated within the report the heritage impacts in general as did the Inspector in the appeal on the previous application. Therefore it was given weight in determining the overall balance behind the Officer recommendation.

Is the footprint of the front elevation of this proposal the same as that which was considered by the Inspector on appeal?

The footprint has been slightly reduced. The width overall of the property has been slightly reduced.

Are we able to consider an alternative design and maybe negotiate the disputed points with the Applicant?

Ultimately, we are here for you to determine the application before you. It is not a matter of looking at an alternative design or renegotiation of the proposal before you. Your material considerations are that it does affect the setting of the Conservation Area and you should be giving that great weight. You are also obliged to have material consideration to the Appeal and how this, in your Officers’ opinion, addresses the reasons put forward by the Inspector in dismissing the Appeal and that it would not likely be successfully defendable at a further Appeal. Looking at the amenity issue of the neighbours, I appreciate where the garage is. You also need to consider that a 2m high fence could be put along that boundary. You could even consider that, in the opinion of your Officers, this relationship is not dissimilar to other relationships of a single storey garage with a roof sloping away compared to other areas in that locality or beyond. If you do feel though in your debate that the design is inadequate or does still have massing issues or amenity issues that is for you to debate and then decide upon and instruct us accordingly.

Given the neighbour’s concern with the window in the garage, is there any way in which the garage could be moved further away?

You could defer this application and instruct Officers to take that away and discuss it with the applicant.

The existing building before the fire, the garage with that building, was it in the same place as the garage would be with this new build?

Yes, broadly speaking, that garage was in the same area.