Agenda item

The Planning Officer reported there was no update.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application and another member of the public spoke against the application.

Councillor David Raw asked Officers to confirm details about the Enforcement Notice and wondered whether the Committee should be waiting for that before making a decision. 

The Planning Officer advised that the Enforcement Notice was served in January 2020. The applicant had the right to appeal which was subsequently dismissed at the appeal.  The compliance date was revised to 11 May 2021. The starting point was that the Enforcement Notice needs to be complied with and that would entail the removal of the dormer.  The applicant had applied for planning permission to put something back once they had complied with the Enforcement Notice.  At the point when the dormer was removed they would be required to return the roof back to a traditional pitch roof or if permission was granted they could then implement the dormer as provided in the plans.  The Enforcement Notice needs to be complied with and the Local Planning Authority (LPA) are aware it had not been.  Separate legal proceedings had commenced in relation to non-compliance. The applicant had submitted this application and needed to be considered on its own merits.  The report justified why the dormer proposed would be acceptable.  Condition C1 suggests an alternative timeframe as opposed to a normal standard condition for a time limit because the LPA do not want to be in position where the roof was left open.  The neighbour would expect one of two options for the roof either that it be returned to its original form or the dormer be implemented should permission be granted. 

Councillor Alex Hayward wanted to check the legal details as looking at the Enforcement Notice and looking at Point 19 it stated that once the roof extension had been removed, the roof would be made good and all the resulting debris removed from the land with the Enforcement Notice fully complied with.  Could the applicant then under permitted development have the right to put in for further development?  The Councillor had concern over “once it had been removed” and that had not happened so why do we have to look at this application separately if they had not complied with the Enforcement Notice. 

The Planning Officer advised that the Inspector was making specific reference to the permitted development rights so if the owner returned it back to a pitch roof they could install a dormer under permitted development rights but in doing so they would have to completely return the roof to its prior condition.  The intention of the owner was to seek planning permission for the dormer which was probably not going to comply with permitted development therefore needed planning permission. There was nothing against applying for planning permission but obviously the LPA had stressed in the report the Enforcement Notice had to be complied with first so the dormer was to be removed and at that point either the roof is re-tiled and returned to a tradition pitch roof or should planning permission be granted the dormer approved be implemented. 

Councillor Alex Hayward asked for clarification on the photographs and plans and what the site looked like now, what it would look like to comply with the Enforcement Notice and how it would look should permission be granted for the dormer.  This was shown to Members and they were advised it was just the top (third level) that was relevant. 

The Planning Officer stated that the Enforcement Notice was because the LPA considered the dormer / roof extension to appear more as a third storey extension and not a dormer.  The purpose of this application was to seek permission for the smaller dormer.

Councillor Alex Hayward could now identify where the roof line was on one of the photos and the original eaves line. 

The Planning Officer advised that the tiles were removed to facilitate the roof extension.  On the right hand side you have a smaller dormer which was still attached/linked to the gable projection.  The element on the left hand side was being removed.  The new dormer would be set down 0.15 metres from the ridge, set in 700 mills from the flank and set back 0.25 metres from the rear wall with the eaves to be reinstated as well.  There would still be a third storey but it would be set back, set in and set down so you would have the tile clearance to the rear and to the side which would be different to having the brick face of the flank wall and the flank wall of the roof extension which currently existed.  There was a distinct difference between what was proposed and what currently existed.  The Inspector comments had made special regard to the fact that this roof extension was visible from Highfield Way because it was flush whereas here it would be set in, set down and set back (particularly set in on the flank) with visibility reduced.

The Planning Officers reiterated the points made by highlighting on the plans and photographs a section of the dormer to be removed and pointed to where the proposed dormer would be and how it would come off the ridge but would not go all the way to the end of roof.  The dormer being sought would reinstate the original roof line with a sloping roof like the neighbour which would reduce the visibility from the street when compared to the existing.  The new structure would be set in from the side and the flank profile would be returned to its original triangle as opposed the edge there now.

Councillor Alex Hayward said the facing flank edge would still be just as prominent but slightly smaller and set in. 

The Planning Officer said if the application was approved the roof would return to the original pitch roof form, the triangle reinstated with the dormer set in 0.75 metres from the flank wall.  It would therefore be less visible. 

Councillor Sara Bedford wanted an explanation on the elevations provided by the officers and details on the dormer which would be set down and set in.  The Councillor thought the wall would still be visible and you would still see the original pitch of the roof from the elevation but it would appear to be a more traditional dormer rather than what was there at the moment which looked like a third floor. By being set in and set down it would look like a dormer we are used to seeing. 

Councillor David Raw said if the pitch roof was put back we are looking at a new dormer and asked if that was over development as it was already a large house.  Although the applicant was looking at putting back the pitch roof and a smaller dormer, it was still overdevelopment. 

Councillor Alex Hayward said it was difficult to review the plans after a cycle of enforcement. There was a tendency to say that’s much better than what was there but in reality would we as the LPA agree to a third storey along this road.

The Planning Officer stated that there were loft conversions in the vicinity of the application site but did not have details of the exact number of properties.  The dormer would be compliant with the design guidelines at Appendix 2 which stated that dormers needed to be subordinate and set down, set in and set back from the ridge, flank wall and rear wall.

Councillor David Raw asked if the application were to be refused would the applicant need to put back the pitch roof under the Enforcement Notice. 

The Planning Officer confirmed this was correct but if Members decided to refuse the application the notice was still in effect and would need to be complied with.  The applicant could appeal the planning decision and as the Inspector had made referenced in the appeal decision for the Enforcement.  The applicant could remove the dormer in its entirety and rebuild the roof and install a dormer under permitted development which was a material consideration. 

Councillor Sara Bedford asked officers to demonstrate what the difference was between what had been applied for and what could be gained under permitted development were the roof line to be restored to its original position

The Planning Officer advised that it would be a box which would not be attached to the rear gable but we would have to have a certificate of lawfulness application to fully assess it.

Councillor Stephen King asked about the roof and if the internal structure would be reinstated at the same time.

The Planning Officer said as long as the roof was re-instated the internals could be checked but whether they would be able to access it would be a different matter.

Councillor Debbie Morris asked if what was proposed would be visible from the street, if so how much and would it be visible from other public vantage points.

The Planning Officer said there maybe some visibility of the dormer when viewed from oblique angles approaching from the west of the site but would be lessened by the fact that it would be a smaller dormer and set in from the flank. 

Councillor David Raw said there were no houses at the back so it could only be viewed from the sides or if you were in the garden.  This was confirmed by the officer.

The Planning Officer stated that they were unable to say you would not see the dormer from the street.  You would see it but it would not be prominent and the officer’s view was that as it would be set down, set in and set back and would not be prominent within the street it would result in less harm. Officers were not able to say you could not see it but they did not think it would be prominent.

Councillor Debbie Morris moved that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the officers report, seconded by Councillor Alison Scarth.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 7 For, 2 Against and 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

The Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the officer report.