Agenda item

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.

11. The TPO confirmed the condition was for the outbuilding to be incidental and ancillary to the host dwelling. In determining the application the TPO advised that weight could not be attributed to any other potential future use as a holiday let, as this was not what was proposed.

12. The DM affirmed that the application pertained to the dwelling, the extension to the dwelling and the building in the garden as a single planning unit. Should the building in the garden be rented out as a separate accommodation this would amount to a material change of use creating a new planning unit which would require planning permission.

13. Cllr P Fisher seconded the proposal.

14. Cllr J Toye stated that whilst he understood the planning reasons behind the Officers recommendation, he struggled with the size of the proposal which would take the dwelling from three bedrooms to six, which had been subject to significant local objection.  Cllr J Toye placed weight on the local objections though stated he would likely vote in favour of the Officers recommendation.

15. The Chairman reminded Members that decision making must be rooted in planning grounds, this must take priority over other interests.

16. Cllr L Withington asked if consideration had been given to dark skies, noting that the roof windows would emit light pollution.

17. The DM confirmed that there were 4 proposed windows on the roof, but commented that the applicant did not require planning permission to make this change.

18. Cllr A Brown established that access to the rear of the site, and any damage arising from increased use of vehicular traffic was not a planning matter for consideration. Should the application be approved, any issues arising would be for the owner to work with neighbours to address. Cllr A Brown commented that the proposal would not breach planning policy, and whilst he understood concern around the increased massing of the building, we was minded to support the Officers recommendation. 

19. Cllr V Holliday disagreed with Cllr A Brown and argued that the proposal was contrary to NNDC Core Strategy Policy EN4, and was not in keeping with the local context in which the dwelling was set. She commented that the dwellings along the street scene were historical, dating from 1927, were attractive and symmetrical. In approving the application this dwelling would be markedly different from those surrounding it. 

20. The PL confirmed that the access to the rear was a private driveway. She commented that there may be an amenity issue in planning terms if there were a lot of vehicles crossing at night, however the status of the backroad was a matter for residents to control.

RESOLVED by 10 votes for 1 against

That Planning Application PF/23/0459 be approved in accordance with the Officers recommendation.