Agenda item

Recommendation: That PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Matthew Roberts, Development Management Team Leader provided the following update:

Following the publication of the report the Case Officer has received 2 emails from neighbouring properties expressing their disappointment with the ‘refusal’. Officers clarified that at this stage only an Officer recommendation has been made. The application has not been determined confirming that it would be for members of the committee to determine the application. The neighbours further reiterated their support for the proposal. It is not considered that the receipt of these comments necessitates any revisions to the report as published.

A Parish Councillor spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Councillor also spoke in support of the application.

The applicant, Mrs Wright-Brown also spoke in support of the application.

The Committee considered the application and raised questions around where the harm would be and pointed out the efforts made by the applicant to align the new design with the existing style.

The case officer explained that although officers recognise the positive enhancements that have been made across the scheme, the conservation officer has expressed concerns predominantly on the combination of the different extensions eroding the original character of the house. However, Members could potentially view the extensions differently, based on preserving certain elements.

The case officer further explained that the unique character of the house is the asymmetrical design, and the conservation officer’s concern is that this unique character will become more symmetrical with the proposed extension design. Although, officers leant towards the conservation officer’s comments in their judgement, Members could come to a different judgement.

Members highlighted the challenges faced when balancing the views of conservation officers with the need for development that may not be visible but still impacts the conservation area.

Concerns were raised about the implications of going against conservation officers’ recommendations and the emphasis on the importance of considering their professional judgement in the decision-making process.

Councillor Chris Lloyd proposed that planning permission be granted with the appropriate conditions and stressed the need for the changes to match existing materials to accommodate modern living while respecting the area’s history. He acknowledged the evolution of conservation areas and the importance of balancing objections with support from the community.

Responding to a request for clarification on the conservation officer’s objections; the case officer reiterated that there are a number of factors that cumulatively result in harm according to the conservation officer. The first being the scale of the extensions when compared to the original dwelling, followed by the loss of the asymmetrical form due to the introduction of the cat slide roof, in addition to consolidating the built form by attaching the garage to the house, extending built form across the plot, rather than having a gap, which emphasizes the overall scale of the extensions. In the conservation officer’s opinion, those factors combined would dilute the positive contribution the dwelling currently makes to the conservation area.

It was also clarified by the case officer that the garage would normally be conditioned that it remains as a garage, if there are potential problems with parking, however, this is not the case in this instance, and the conversion of that garage to habitable accommodation at a later date may not require planning permission. It would only become an issue if it was a separate planning unit that is used for independent residential purposes, which would need planning permission in its own right. Therefore, the condition wouldn’t have much of a material impact  and therefore is not required.

Councillor Chris Lloyd moved, seconded by Councillor Elinor Gazzard that planning permission be granted, contrary to officer recommendation for refusal, subject to the following conditions:

• time limit
• approved plans
• submission of materials
• works to accord with Arboricultural Impact Assessment
• rooflight to be flush with roof
• erection of 1.8m high solid/obscure privacy screens to flank of balcony
• obscure window to proposed side dormer
• no additional windows to flank windows / roofslopes
• details showing how walls to be retained during construction can be retained.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 8 For, 0 Against, 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That PLANNING PERMISSION be APPROVED.