Agenda item

Officer’s report

The DMTL introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. Since the publication of the agenda, additional representations had been received objecting to the proposal which had been uploaded to the planning portal.  He outlined the site’s location, relationship with the neighbouring dwelling, existing and proposed floor plans and elevations, and provided images of the site.

The DMTL advised the key issues for consideration related to design and heritage, and amenity issues. It was noted that the scheme was for a sizeable extension, however the revised proposal plans were considered to result in less than substantial harm and would ensure that the extension remained subservient to the host dwelling. The Conservation and Design Officer had lifted their objection, and now considered the application policy compliant. It could be conditioned that the Holly tree be retained, however it was considered the Holly tree did not justify reason for refusal.

With respect to amenity matters, the neighbour had raised objections to the proposal which they considered would result in unacceptable overlooking of their property. Subsequently revised plans were submitted which removed the initially proposed balcony. Officers did not consider there would be significant overlooking and noted that the neighbour also had a first-floor window facing the gardens. The impact of any loss of light to the first-floor window on the neighbouring property facing the extension, would be limited by consequence of the window serving a stairwell and not a primary room.

The proposal was not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the AONB or Conservation Area, with the extension being located to the rear of the dwelling and only visible from the east.

The existing parking arrangement was not altered with the proposal and therefore did not substantiate grounds for refusal.

Public Speakers

Wayne Shields – Weybourne Parish Council

Marie Fraser - Objecting

Members’ Debate and Questions

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr V Holliday – reflected on objections raised from the community, that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on dark skies, loss of biodiversity, lack of parking and impact to the conservation area. The Local Member affirmed that the Local Authority had a responsibility to consider any material considerations raised by local people. Cllr V Holliday considered the application would block out light to the first-floor windows of the neighbouring property and would cause additional overshadowing of the garden which would be most notable in the spring. She further argued that the first-floor windows would overlook the neighbouring garden, something which had been noted in the officer’s report. The Local Member stated the sizable extension would result in a lack of amenity space, which much of the remaining garden intending to be paved which would contribute of the loss of biodiversity. She expressed her concerns about the parking arrangements which was unsuited to the area. Cllr V Holliday stated that the application was in conflict with EN2, EN4, EN8, EN9, HO8, CT6 and emerging Local Plan policy CT10 in addition to the Conservation Management Guidelines and the NNDC design guide.

     ii.        Cllr L Paterson expressed his concerns about the loss of light and privacy to neighbours. He stated the parking arrangements were inappropriate.

    iii.        The Chairman reiterated the proposal did not seek to alter the existing parking arrangements.

   iv.        Cllr P Fisher considered this was a finely balanced application and proposed the application be deferred pending a site visit.

     v.        Cllr M Hankins seconded the motion for a site visit.

RESOLVED by 10 votes for and 1 abstention.

That Planning Application PF/22/1530 be DEFERRED to enable a site visit.