Issue - meetings

The Chairman introduced planning application 140569 for replacement of a dormer bungalow with a two storey house. The Development Management Officer explained there had been two further comments received which raised concerns that the finished building would be directly overlooking neighbouring properties. She explained the reason behind the application being the recent flooding in Scotter and that the raised height of the building would allow for better protection in case of future flooding.

The Chairman stated there were two registered speakers on the application and invited the first speaker, Mrs Laura Calvert, Applicant, to address the Committee.

Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to address the Committee.

Last November our property suffered almost 1 metre floodwater, after already flooding badly 12 days prior. The third severe flood event, that we are aware of, in 12 years.

Therefore this application is born out of necessity to protect from future flood events. It would be retracted immediately should others be able to assure us that future flood events are preventable. Sadly flooding is a likely occurrence and this has been reiterated by the EA on many occasions, worsened by the low lying position of our home.

After much deliberating on design, projected build costings and rational planning we have concluded that our proposal is the only way to deal with the problem we face but to make it viable we need to enhance the original design by extending the footprint in such a way that it dovetails with the existing layout and is oriented to suit the plot and it’s features.

As we understand it, this application has failed because of our reluctance to remove the very extension that will enable this proposal to be viable.

We would like to challenge the planning teams statement that we have had the ‘opportunity to address concerns raised but have failed to do so due to our own private interests’. If this is implying financial gain to us, that is far from correct, we may break even if this application is successful, at the very best. The only ‘private interest’ we have is the safety and assurance for our three boys under the age of 7 years old who are still showing signs of distress following the flood, of which government guidance states should be considered in planning decisions. The planning team are failing to understand that the removal of the extension would be the end of the road for us. We are not a developer seeking to make profit, we are a young family who want to protect their home from flooding. We are not being unreasonable, purely realistic. Nobody can spend significant amounts of money to result in negative equity.

The reality is the proposed design lends itself to minimise costs by using as much of the existing footprint as possible, and the extension and extra bedroom recoups some of these substantial costs. An extension and extra bedroom has always been an option for our growing family.

In a bid to accommodate all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81