Agenda item

The SPO-JB introduced the report and relayed the Officer’s recommendation for approval. It was determined that the critical aspects of the report related to design and amenity.

Public Speakers

Phil Harris – Councillor, Cromer Town Council

Douglas Hiscock (Objecting)

i.          , Cllr T Adams - Local Member expressed concerns that the scale and massing of the property would result in overdevelopment of the site. Impacts on amenity had also been noted in comments raised by public objectors. He added that the building would be of a considerably larger scale following development compared to existing properties in the area and along the Runton Road. Cllr T Adams suggested the result would be a cramped development with the host building being dominated by the extension.

ii.          The MPM relayed a statement prepared by Local Member -Cllr A Yiasimi, who was unable to attend the meeting. The Local Member had advised that each application should be considered on its merits, and expressed his support of the Officer’s recommendation for approval. Cllr A Yiasimi noted that he was familiar with the area and considered the application to be acceptable in principle and on consideration of the impact on character and appearance, amenity and Highway safety.

iii.         Cllr R Kershaw queried the documentation of the Parish Councils comments, with the report stating no objection, whereas the Parish Council made there objection known. He added that he shared the concerns raised by neighbours with respect to the massing of the building, and impact that the relocation of the living room to the first floor would have on privacy, and stated that he would vote against the Officer’s recommendation.

iv.        Cllr A Brown objected to the application, stating that whilst the application may be policy compliant, the final result would be an intensification of the site. There would be a large loss of garden, which he determined to be at the upper limit of acceptability. If the application were approved, he suggested that permitted development rights be withdrawn.

v.         In response to questions raised by the Chairman, the SPO-JB advised that the remaining garden space would be permissible for the dwelling, but this was a finely balanced application. The case officer noted within the recommendation the removal of permitted rights associated with alterations and extensions as well as roof additions.

vi.        Cllr J Toye agreed with concerns about the scale and massing of the development, and the loss of garden space that would result in a loss of biodiversity.

vii.        Cllr V Holiday sought clarification on what percentage increase of the extension compared to the footprint of the original dwelling, and referred to the design guide defining distances between windows to neighbouring properties, as she believed the development would be very close to adjacent neighbours. She added that the single storey studio in the garden would be considered as a bedroom, given that it contained a bathroom, and with this increased bedroom capacity, the application should be considered developmental over-massing. The SPO-JB replied that he did not have footprint figures available, but, it had been a subjective and balanced assessment of the amenity relationship. It was understood that the two storey wall would create some overshadowing, and that it was a judgement whether the shorter hipped roof and reduced ridge line significantly increased concerns, though this was determined by Officers to be acceptable.

viii.       Cllr N Pearce stated it was a very large extension and redesign of the property in a confined space. The rights of the existing neighbours to their privacy was paramount in deciding upon the application.

ix.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle enquired what the percentage increase of combined extensions was compared to the host dwelling. The SPO-JB advised that floor area calculations were not available. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked whether there was a maximum size to an extension which may be added when compared to the host building. The ADP advised that no clearly defined rule existed.

x.         With no proposer or seconder for the Officers recommendation, the Chairman enacted rule 17.5 of the Constitution which deemed the officer’s reports both proposed and seconded at the Chairman’s discretion.

VOTE WAS LOST by 10 against, and 1 abstention.

Cllr J Toye proposed refusal of the application under policy SS7, as well as policy EN4 in that the scale and massing of the proposed development did not respect the character or landscape of the surrounding area, and would negatively impact on biodiversity through the loss of land.  He added that the application was not suitability designed for the context of which it was considered to be set. Cllr N Pearce seconded, and asked that loss of privacy also be noted as a reason refusal.

RESOLVED by 11 votes for.

That Application PF/20/2569 be refused in accordance with policy SS7 and EN4, and the loss of privacy on adjacent properties.