Agenda item

(Councillor Marigold Jaques declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that she had once lived in the area and had known some of the residents. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that his children had played at one of the properties on the list many years ago. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/00386/HOUSE in respect of the demolition of existing detached garage and construction of ground and first floor side extension, rear single storey extension.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Janetta Kennedy and Mr Roderick Grafton, objectors and Ms Waveney Thomson, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which was recommended for approval and ran through the key points. He drew attention to an amendment to Condition 2 on the update sheet.

Mrs Kennedy and Mr Grafton in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mrs Kennedy introduced her husband Dick Kennedy. Their objection was to the rear single storey extension proposed.

·         They had welcomed the new owners to Norton Cottage after the death of the previous owner. The property had been left to become derelict.

·         Mrs Kennedy and her husband had lived at Rose Cottage for over 40 years. The cottages had originally been erected to house farm workers.

·         When they had bought the middle cottage, it had already had a second storey extension for the bathroom. They had then joined two single storey extensions together to increase the kitchen size. Next they had built a second storey extension above the bathroom in order of moving the bathroom upstairs. Later on they had removed the flat roof.

·         Mrs Kennedy reported that apart from the porch area they had not increased the footprint to the front of the property.

·         Mrs Kennedy was against the single storey rear extension because there would always be the fear that it could be developed into a second storey extension in the future, which would infringe greatly on her property.

·         Mr Roderick lived at number one Mead Cottage. He felt that the proposal would cause overdevelopment of the site as the plot was only designed for three small dwellings.

·         The porch of the proposed extension would be 70% closer to the boundary.

·         The two storey extension would intrude on the privacy of his home, which would be very close to one of his children’s bedrooms. He had noted that obscured glass could be used in the side elevation and he stressed that this should be enforced if the application was approved.

·         He did not accept the conclusions of the officer’s report and felt that the extension would cause a loss of light to his property.

Councillor Richard Crumly noted that the flat roof could only just be seen from Mrs Kennedy’s property and the extension itself was only just visible. Mrs Kennedy was concerned about privacy. The extension rose a foot above the hedge at present and she was mainly concerned that the extension could become a two storey extension future.

Councillor Keith Chopping noted that Mr Grafton had stated that the extension would be directly opposite his child’s bedroom. Councillor Chopping noted that there were already three windows that faced Mr Grafton’s property and this would change to two windows and a bathroom window if the proposal was approved. Mr Grafton stated that he could only recall two windows presently. Mr Grafton stated that if the proposal was approved he would like to see obscured glass imposed.

Ms Waveney Thompson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She was the applicant and owner of Norton Cottage.

·         She had worked very closely with Planning Officers to ensure any issues were resolved and to reach the plan that was in front of Members that evening.

·         Regarding parking, by removing the existing garage and setting the side extension back, it had opened the property up and allowed parking for two vehicles.

·         A pitched roof had been chosen to accord with the street scene and define the extension from the existing property.

·         The rear extension had been reduced but would still allow the bathroom to be moved to the first floor.

·         There had been a double pitched roof to replicate that of Rose Cottage but this had needed to be removed and replaced with a flat roof due to cost.

·         The window subject of Mr Grafton’s concerns would be 2.5 metres closer to his child’s bedroom and obscured glass was being proposed.

·         Design had needed to be particularly sympathetic due to the property being in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·         Ms Waveney Thompson requested that the Committee support her application and approve the recommendation.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to the obscured glass. He noted that one of the two windows already had obscured glass and asked if the intention was for both windows to be obscured. Ms Waveney Thompson confirmed that there would be one bedroom window and one bathroom window and both would have obscured glass.

Councillor Crumly queried the layout of the property and it was confirmed by Ms Waveney Thompson that there were three bedroom upstairs and then a bathroom downstairs. It was confirmed that the plans for the site had been scaled back.

Councillor Marigold Jaques asked if the property currently had any heating and if not whether gas or oil would be installed. Ms Waveney Thompson confirmed that there was no heating in the property and the plan was to have oil central heating installed. Councillor Jaques further queried where the oil tank would be located and Ms Waveney Thompson stated that she was happy to locate the tank in line with building regulations.

Councillor Metcalfe noted that the window to the right would be obscured. Ms Waveney Thompson confirmed that the window to the right was a bedroom and stated that if she was going to have to obscure it then she was tempted to have it removed.

Councillor Quentin Webb as Ward Member stated that in his opinion by increasing the size of the property it was allowing for modern day living. He did not feel it would have a negative impact on the street scene. The applicant had worked closely with the Planning Officer to fulfil the requirements of design policy. He did not think that the properties to the sides of the dwelling would be negatively impacted upon. In his opinion, with the amendments that had been discussed, he felt that he would be minded to support the application.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to Permitted Development Rights. He was concerned about subsequent owners and queried what could and could not be carried out without a planning application.

Simon Till confirmed that because the property was within the AONB permitted development rights would be quite limited. Any two storey proposal would require planning permission. Permitted development rights for any windows in the side elevation at first floor or above would also require those windows to be obscure glazed.

Councillor Bridgman asked what the applicant or future applicant could do without planning permission if the application was granted. Councillor Webb felt that the conditions already covered this. Councillor Bridgman stated that only the side elevation first floor windows were covered.

Councillor Bridgman asked if Permitted Development Rights could be removed within reason to allay fears of further development without planning permission.

David Pearson confirmed that it seemed reasonable for any extension above single storey to require planning permission and removal of Permitted Development Rights for extensions.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe referred to the obscured glass and felt that this was an unusual requirement for a bedroom window. David Pearson stated that it was unusual however, the applicant was satisfied.

The Chairman asked if the applicant would have to seek planning permission to remove the window at first floor level in the side elevation and David Pearson stated that removal of the window would be unlikely to require a new planning application as it was not likely to materially impact on amenity.

Councillor Chopping stated that he had a number of issues. He felt that obscured glass in a bedroom window was unfair on the applicant as the window had only moved about two metres from its existing location. Regarding Mrs Kennedy’s point about the boundary wall, Councillor Chopping felt that this could be overcome through the planting of greenery.

Councillor Chopping could not see any major issue with the application and felt it was an imaginative scheme and therefore proposed that the application be granted planning permission. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Linden.

Councillor Bridgman agreed with the proposal however was minded to include a condition removing Permitted Development Rights for 2 storey extensions. David Pearson stated that Permitted Development Rights could be removed on any proposals that were over two storey. Councillor Chopping felt that anything 2 storey level should require planning permission so a condition restricting permitted development rights should be applied.

The Chairman invited Members to vote on the proposal by Councillor Chopping, seconded by Councillor Linden and at the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

Informatives: