Issue - meetings

Decision

Approved

Officers Report

The TPO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. She established the sites location, provided aerial and site photographs, outlined existing elevations and floor plans and proposed site plan, elevations, roof and floor plans. It was noted that use of the outbuilding would be conditioned for incidental purposes only. The main issues for consideration was whether the proposed development was acceptable in respect of principle, the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, effect on residential amenity and whether the proposed development would have any effect on highway safety.

Public Speakers

Phil Harris – Objecting

Carolyn Wright – Supporting

Members Debate and Question’s

1. The Local Member – Cllr T Adams – drew comparisons to another application in his Ward, PF/20/2569, which had been refused on the basis that the application did not pay respect to the character of the surrounding area and failed to ensure that the scale and massing of the building related sympathetically to the surround area. Cllr T Adams, stated that he was not opposed to the principle of an extension but considered the proposal would not be subservient to the host dwelling through the doubling of the footprint and addition of an outbuilding. He contended that the proposal was out of character for the built form of the area and noted the numerous public objections to the application.

2. Cllr J Boyle – Local Member – considered the scale of the proposal was an overdevelopment of the dwelling and would not be in keeping with its immediate setting.

3. The Chairman sought confirmation whether a significant portion of the scheme could be achieved under permitted development rights.

4. The TPO advised that the outbuilding could be built out under permitted development.

5. Cllr J Toye asked, had the application been for the extension to the rear only, whether this could be built under permitted development rights as a single floor extension.

6. The DM advised the application presented to Members was not for permitted development, and confirmed that Members needed to consider and assess the proposal against NNDC Core Strategy policies, in particular EN4. He affirmed that Officers were satisfied that the proposal accorded with policies and reflected that nearby properties had also been extended. 

7. Cllr V Holiday asked about the distance between the extension and the neighbouring property, and whether the proposal would overlook the neighbour.

8. The TPO commented that there would be two windows on the ground floor of the Northern Elevation which would serve the bathroom. This was not considered by Officers to have an overlooking effect on neighbours.

9. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett did not consider there to be a problem with the proposed extension on planning grounds and further she that there had been other developments to the south of a similar nature to the ancillary building. Cllr A Fitch Tillett proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation for approval.

10. Cllr L Withington sought confirmation that the incidental building could not be used as a holiday let and that this would be conditioned.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25