Agenda item
2022/0547/FUL
Minutes:
Justin Johnson, Planning Officer, introduced the application and gave an executive summary, recommending approval subject to conditions outlined in the report.
Prior to the debate the Committee received deputations from Ross Jarvie who spoke as the member of the public opposing the application. The Committee also had the opportunity to ask questions of these speakers.
It was proposed by the Chair that applications 2022/0547/FUL and 2022/0562/LBA be discussed together as it was the same site and to take two votes at the end of debate. This was seconded and upon being put to vote, the motion was unanimously agreed.
Officers during their deputation did highlight that the agent had submitted amended plans to remove the air source heat pump from the scheme following the concerns relating to noise. If the applicant decided to reinstall one, it would be dealt with separately.
Concerns raised over the wall to the north of the site, it was confirmed that with the conditions attached to the permission, the development could be carried out and would not cause an adverse impact to the wall.
During debate, Members raised concerns over the protection of the wall in question to the North of the site. Officers reassured Members that condition 5 within the addendum would provide comprehensive monitoring and included trigger values which if exceeded would halt any work being carried out.
Certain Members raised the point to why the recent submitted application for repair works to the walls could not be dealt with first before works were carried out on the swimming pool and changing room. Officers stated that it came down to reasonableness, the report clearly stated that if the wall was left with no maintenance, it would eventually fall into disrepair. Officers had to assess if the development proposed had a detrimental impact on it. With the evidence officers had, no it did not, providing the conditions that were listed would be in place. In summary, officers felt it wasn’t reasonable to insist the wall was repaired first.
A question was asked around the disposal of the swimming pool water when cleaning took place. A request from the water authority to provide notice to when the removal of the water would take place and it would connect to the main water supply.
It was pointed out to Members with regards to the concerns of privacy and sight lines from the neighbour, the levels would not change to what they already were currently, as the pool would be dug into the ground, the view would just be altered with the new pool in use, would not be any worse off. No reason to object the application on that point.
A concern was raised around the noise and disturbance for the neighbouring properties. Officer responded that these were a material consideration of an application with the primary noise being produced from construction. Conditions were in place with the construction management plan to deal with that. The pool was for residential use therefore would not warrant for refusal on those grounds. It was also pointed out to Members that the applicant’s agents neighbour currently has a swimming pool at that property.
It was moved by Councillor G Brown and seconded that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the report and the additional informative suggested by Members. Upon being put to the vote, with 5 votes for and 4 votes against, the motion was carried.
RESOLVED
a) That the application 2022/0547/FUL be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined by the Planning Officer and agreed by Members within the debate.
b) The full list of reasons can be found on the planning application page of the Council’s website
*At 8.16pm Councillor A Brown left the meeting*
Supporting documents:
PDF 256 KB