Agenda item

Conditional approval.

The Planning Officer presented the report by remote link.  He recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.  A copy of the visual presentation had previously been forwarded to the Committee and was also presented on screen by the Planning Officer.

Public Speaker

Joanna Latham (objecting)

The Chairman stated that a supporting statement had been submitted by the applicant’s agent and had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting.  The Committee Members confirmed they had read the statement.

Councillor V Holliday, the local Member, referred to the retrospective nature of the application.  She had brought the matter to the Committee to question the point of the planning system if developments were allowed to take place without prior statutory consultee or parishioner input, and stated that the neighbours’ concerns could have been debated had the usual planning process been followed.    She considered that the sunroom had the potential to create more light pollution than a conservatory, due to the nature of its use and location in the AONB and dark skies area. She referred to the Design Guide in relation to the siting and form of extensions, and considered that the larch cladding would be out of keeping with neighbouring properties.  She referred to concerns regarding the parking impact of the garage conversion, air pollution, position of the flue in relation to the neighbour’s bedroom and impact of light from the garage rooflight on the neighbour.  She understood that there were issues relating to foul water discharge from the study.  She referred to a comment from the Conservation and Design Officer that the built structure was at variance with the plans.

In response to a question by Councillor P Heinrich, the Planning Officer confirmed that with the exception of the cladding, the development could have taken place under permitted development rights.

Councillor G Mancini-Boyle expressed concern that the flue had been located on a low level garage within a development of two-storey dwellings and that the type of installation was not good for the environment or local residents.

The Assistant Director for Planning explained that the health implications and appropriateness of the flue extraction would be dealt with through Building Regulations.  The planning considerations related to the visual impact of the flue.

Councillor N Pearce asked if the extension was contrary to Policy EN8.  He expressed concern at its design and the impact that its appearance would have in the future.  He did not support the Officer’s recommendation in this case.

In response to a question by Councillor J Toye, the Assistant Director for Planning explained that developments carried out under permitted development were subject to Building Regulations.  He explained the difference between planning permission and Building Regulations.  He confirmed that in this case, both the garage conversion and the sunroom would be subject to Building Regulations.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett shared the concerns regarding light pollution and asked if it was possible to impose a condition to prevent external lighting.

The Assistant Director for Planning explained that the recommendation was balanced in its requirement for the submission of an external lighting scheme, which would be expected to adhere to reasonable standards in dark sky areas.  If the Committee considered a balance in favour of no external lighting Members would need to consider the reasonableness of such a condition, bearing in mind that a number of the properties at Bloomstiles already had external lighting.

Councillor Mrs Fitch-Tillett considered that there was no need for external lighting in a dark sky area and a torch could be used if necessary.

Councillor A Brown stated that he had been surprised that this application had come before the Committee as applications in compliance with the Development Plan should be approved unless outweighed by material considerations.  He noted that there had been no objection from the Parish Council or statutory consultees.  He considered that there were genuine concerns regarding loss of parking but this was not sufficient to refuse the application.  He stated that the timber cladding would weather over time and become less prominent.  He proposed approval of this application as recommended.  This was seconded by Councillor Heinrich.

Following questions regarding conditions and advice given by Officers, Councillor Brown stated that whilst he had sympathy with Councillor Mrs Fitch-Tillett’s comments regarding dark skies, there was national guidance on this matter and he was mindful that the Council would be open to challenge if it did not follow that guidance.  He was content with the Officer’s recommendation as it stood but asked that the best possible scheme be negotiated.

Councillor Holliday explained that the Parish Council had tried to object but it was out of time and did not realise that comments could be submitted by email as well as via the Planning Portal. 

The Assistant Director for Planning stated that Officers would be pleased to assist Parish Councils to engage with the planning process.  With regard to dark skies, he explained that national advice from the Institute of Lighting Engineers was followed and Officers would ensure that the development would adhere to that guidance.  Officers would update Councillor Holliday in respect of the approved lighting scheme.

RESOLVED by 9 votes to 3

That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Assistant Director for Planning.