Agenda item

Additional domestic accomodation in the form of a single story annexe.

Public Participation:

·       Andrew Bryant – Neighbouring resident spoke in objection to the application

·       Fran Larkin - Applicant spoke in support of the application

Yancy Sun, as the planning case officer presented the report and recommended that planning permission should be approved subject to conditions and informatives as detailed in the report, for additional domestic accommodation in the form of a single-storey annexe located in the rear garden.

The case officer stated that the main issues for consideration by the Committee was an assessment of the principle of development, the impacts on visual amenity, heritage assets, effects on neighbour amenity and highways.

The officer described the site being located within the village settlement limits of Hilperton and relating to a two-storey end of terrace residential property. The site was not subject to any specific land designation constraints and was not at risk of flooding. Members were informed that the Conservation Area was located over 600m to the southeast and the nearest listed building is over 50m away with several other properties and gardens between the nearest heritage asset and the application site.

Prior to the committee meeting, Members attended a site visit and were shown the application site and surroundings and noted that the site was set back from the main road and was not readily seen from the public domain.

The case officer indicated that there was no objection from Hilperton Parish Council, although some Parish Councillors had raised concerns about access for the construction phase. Publicity had generated four letters of objection, three of which were from neighbouring properties.

Members of the Committee were then given an opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. The main issues raised included the relevance of the applicant’s status in relation to the application and permitted development rights allowing for the construction of a slightly smaller building. 

In response, officers confirmed that they had not given any weight to the status of the applicant and that the application was assessed on its own merits and land-based planning material considerations.  In terms of a permitted development fallback option, the committee was informed that the applicant could construct a slightly smaller building using the provisions set out within Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development (England) Order (2015) (As amended) as an alternative to the application before the committee, and the LPA would not have any decision making authority for such an alternative.

Members of the public, as detailed above, then had the opportunity to address the Committee and speak to the application.

Local Unitary Member, Cllr Ernie Clark, addressed the Committee and detailed his objections to the application, which specifically related to concerns about the structure being permanent rather than temporary, and the design and appearance being in direct contravention of Core Policy 57.  Cllr Clarke also argued that the application would not be well integrated in its surroundings, and that it did not make any significant contribution to the specific area of Hilperton.  Additional concerns were raised about the height of the proposed annexe and its impact on neighbouring properties.  

Cllr Clark then moved to refuse the application against officer recommendation, which was seconded by Cllr Andrew Davis.

During the debate, Committee members enquired about the potential to restrict the height of the annexe by condition, and sought officer advice in terms of Core Policy 57 and delivering high quality development.  In response, officers confirmed that the committee was not able to materially alter what was proposed including the height of the annexe, and if the committee resolved to refuse the application, CP57 would be the policy to refer to defend any subsequent appeal.  Members were advised that the applicant could however make use of permitted development rights to construct a slightly smaller annexe without relying on an appeal.

At the conclusion of the debate a vote was taken on the motion to refuse the application.

The vote to refuse the application was lost with 4 votes for and 6 votes against the motion.

A further motion was moved by Cllr Palmen, seconded by Cllr Piazza to grant the application in accordance with the officer recommendation. 

Following which, it was:

Resolved:

To grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location and block plan Drawing 2114.100, and Proposed plans and elevations: Drawing 21145.102, received 5 April 2022

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.    The ancillary annexe accommodation hereby approved shall only endure for the benefit of the owner/occupiers of the host dwelling at Yew Tree Cottage (otherwise known as No.10 Horse Road) and it shall only be used for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling and shall remain solely within the same planning unit as the main dwelling and not be sold or let as a separate unit of accommodation.

REASON: To define the terms of this planning permission and in the interests of good planning.

4.    Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending that Order with or without modification), no garages, sheds, greenhouses or any other ancillary domestic outbuildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the host dwelling unless approved under a separate planning application.

REASON: It is considered necessary to remove any residual Permitted Development rights for any additional outbuildings to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

5.    No development shall commence on site, until a Construction Method Statement, which shall include details of the following:

(a)  the parking of vehicles of site operatives.

(b)  loading and unloading of plant and materials.

(c)  storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development.

(d)  measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction.

(e)  hours of construction, including deliveries.

has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be complied with in full throughout the construction period. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved construction method statement.

REASON: To minimise detrimental effects to the neighbouring amenities, the amenities of the area in general, detriment to the natural environment through the risks of pollution and dangers to highway safety, during the construction phase.

6.    No development shall commence beyond slab level until full details of the exact colour and finish to the external walls of the annexe as well as the surface water details and the foul connections to be made to the sewerage system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to ensure appropriate site servicing connections are made available prior to occupation.

Planning Informatives:

Pursuant to condition 3, the applicant is advised that this application is hereby approved on the basis that the ancillary annexe has and maintains a direct, functional and dependant relationship with the main dwelling.