Item 18, Page 92                                                                       7 Cavendish Way, Bearsted, ME15 8PW

Reference number: 16/507158

●          Councillor Springett has made further comments relating to this application, which are set out below with the appropriate response:

-       The proposed annexe is not in the same location as the 3-bay garage approved under 14/500583

Response:  With regards to the orientation of the proposed garage, reference is made to it being in the same location as the 3-bay garage approved under 14/500583 (para 8.03 & para 11.02).  Although still to the rear of the site, the already approved garage would be set against the northern boundary of the site at a right-angle to the track.  In my view, the location of this proposed annexe relates better to the pattern of development as set out in the main report and my recommendation is unchanged for the reasons outlined.

-       The annexe is a1.7m bigger than the approved garage, not 1.5m as stated.

Response:  From measuring the submitted plan (PL-201A), I am satisfied that the annexe is approximately 1.5m longer than the 3-bay garage approved under 14/500583.

-       The subdivision of the 2 gardens relating to planning permission 14/500583 has not been carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 

Response:  The plans originally submitted under 14/500583 show the subdivision of the gardens of 7 and 7a Cavendish Road to be mirrored to what they are on the ground.  However, details of boundary treatments (condition 6) were subsequently submitted and approved (15/503029/SUB); and these approved details do show the subdivision of the gardens as they are now on site.  So whilst this is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application and does not affect my recommendation, I can confirm that the garden layouts are as approved under 15/503029/SUB

●          For clarification, given the internalisation of the external staircase, the description of the proposal has been amended to: “Erection of an annex with store room above”.

            This is not considered to prejudice anyone as all parties have been consulted on amended plans showing an internal staircase.

My recommendation remains unchanged.