Agenda item

The Planning Officer reported that this application had come forward following a decision made in March by the Committee who had refused the previous scheme on the grounds that the replacement roof had failed to replicate the original roof and loss of the stepped roof form leading to an unsympathetic replacement.  Upon the finalisation of the officer report, Batchworth Community Council advised that following a review of the amended plans they wished to withdraw their call-in request.  They had commented that “we note the revised scale and that the bulk and massing of the roof now seems to have corrected previous comments raised and seemed acceptable.  The proposed design was more in keeping with the original form and design.  This is a Pre 1958 property and the rear dormer windows are now the same size but request that the Council ensure that the windows do not have a negative impact on neighbouring dwellings.  Any windows in the side elevation to be obscured glazed and any velux windows to be top level opening only.  They also commented on the importance of all future works to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.”  The Conservation Officer was reconsulted with regard to the amended plans and had no objections.  In response the Community Council comments officers do not consider that the dormer windows would have an impact on privacy of neighbouring dwellings as set out in the report.  Condition 3 requires a Construction Demolition Method Statement to be submitted prior to any further works on site.  The plans do not include any flank roof lights as they were removed during the planning process.  There would be no additional first floor flank windows which are required to be obscurely glazed. The ground floor windows are such that officers do not consider they would result in harm to neighbours.

Members made the following points:

Condition 4 talks about the requirement for samples and details of proposed external materials to be provided and asked if the condition could be amended to incorporate the Conservation Officer comments on the new windows and the details on doors, eaves, verges and cills to be submitted.  Did the door reference include the garage door.

Councillor Debbie Morris moved, duly seconded, that permitted development rights be removed.  There will be 16.5% plot coverage but under the Conservation Area Appraisal the recommended plot coverage was 15%.

The Planning Officer advised that if Members believe that the condition needs to be strengthened in accordance with the Conservation Officer comments the condition could be amended.  The garage door is being retained and not replaced.  On removing permitted development rights, the Committee need to consider whether it is reasonable and meets the test as set out in the NPPF as we can be challenged.  With regard to this development, they would not be able to utilise much permitted development rights in respect of extensions to the house because they had been used up from this application.  The Conservation Area does have specific restrictions applied via the Article 4 so some care would be needed on whether or not that would be reasonable to prevent development.  It could be considered on whether to remove permitted development for outbuildings.  There are things which can be done under permitted development unless there are very special circumstances why we should restrict it.  The 15% is a guideline and is not a rule and it would not justify the removal of permitted development.

Councillor Matthew Bedford moved that Planning Permission be Granted (in accordance with the officer’s recommendation) with the addition of amendments to Condition 4 (Materials) to include details of proposed new windows, doors, eaves, verges and cills, seconded by Councillor Raj Khiroya.

On being to the Committee the amendment that permitted development rights be removed was declared LOST by the Chair the voting being 3 For, 6 Against and 1 Abstention.

On being put to the Committee the motion to grant planning permission and the amendments to Condition 4 (Materials) was declared CARRIED the voting being 7 For, 0 Against and 3 Abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be Granted (in accordance with the officer’s recommendation) with the addition of amendments to Condition 4 (Materials) to include details of proposed new windows, doors, eaves, verges and cills.

Amended Condition 4:

Prior to any further construction works on site, samples and details of the proposed external materials including details of the proposed windows, doors, eaves, verges and cills (at scales between 1:20 and 1:1 as appropriate) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no external materials shall be used other than those approved.

Reason: To prevent the building being constructed in inappropriate materials in accordance with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Policies DM1, DM3 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013) and the Moor Park Conservation Area Appraisal (2006).

CHAIR