Agenda item

Extension to side and rear with link building to garage and conversion of garage.

Public Participation

Denise Simpkins, on behalf of Mrs Stare and Mr Bellamy, spoke in objection of the application.

Sandra Brimacombe spoke in objection of the application.

Simon Littlewood spoke in support of the application.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined an extension to side and rear with link building to garage and conversion of garage.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development; impact on the character and appearance of nearby listed buildings; impact on the character, appearance, visual amenity of the locality; impact on the residential amenity and impact on highway safety. It was also noted that the application had changed to have small and obscure overlooking windows.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on what the percentage of development increase would be compared to the current property, to which it was clarified by the Officer that such assessments no longer formed a policy basis.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Jacqui Lay provided her apologies of her absence and was therefore represented by Councillor Allison Bucknell, who had beencovering Councillor Lay’s case work.Councillor Allison Bucknell stated that havingdriven past the site it appeared to be a large infill site with little space either side, therefore making it constrained. Councillor Bucknell stated that though the proposals would be advantageous for the applicant, this would be at the expense of neighbours, through a loss outlook and the extension potentially having an overbearing impact. Furthermore, there would be an additional loss of amenity to a neighbour, with a proposed glass side that would be overlooking. Councillor Bucknell further added that if permitted, the application would potentially cause a loss of parking whilst also causing more vehicle movements with cars being forced onto the road. In summary, Councillor Bucknell stated that this would be overdevelopment to the property, which would contradict CP57 (vii), causing an existing amenity impact.

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Tony Trotman and seconded by Councillor Peter Hutton, however when later voted upon the motion fell due to the number of votes against.

Consequently, a motion to reject the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Gavin Grant and seconded by Councillor Steve Bucknell. The reason being that following debate and receipt of representations at the meeting, members considered that the proposal constituted an overdevelopment of a constrained site that would not achieve high quality design by virtue of its bulk, mass and positioning. The proposals thereby result in harm to the character appearance and visual amenity of the locality and existing neighbouring residential amenities being both overbearing and resulting in loss of privacy. The proposals were thereby in conflict Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) Core Policy CP57 (iii) & (vii).

During the debate the issues included the potential parking issues that might be caused if the application was permitted; though it was acknowledged that the Highways report showed no objection. A potential parking issues was identified in that one of the necessary spaces would be outside double doors which would open, therefore causing the space to be out of use. It was also argued that parking issues could potentially be enforced if evidenced. The location of neighbouring properties was referenced, with it being argued that all of the properties were in line and therefore would not cause the garage to look out of character; additionally the neighbouring buildings could potentially obscure the view of the connection to the garage.

Further issues that were debated were whether the extension would reflect positively on CP57 (iii), in providing a positive response to the townscape and landscape. It was also argued that if accepted, the built form would take up more of the site than space left to remain; with the property itself already being significant within its area. Furthermore, due to the size of the property, it was questioned whether conditions would be enough to resolve concerns, especially with contradictions to Core Policies involved. Comparisons were also made between the application and with properties 13 & 14, with suggestions made that due to the large size of the plot neighbours could be made to feel oppressed. Additionally, it was suggested that if the application was to be accepted, the property would eventually exist to be double its original size.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

That contrary to the Officer recommendation the application be refused for the following reason:

The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of a constrained site that does not achieve high quality design by virtue of its bulk, mass and positioning. The proposals thereby result in harm to the character appearance and visual amenity of the locality and existing neighboring residential amenities being both overbearing and resulting in loss of privacy. The proposals are thereby in conflict Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) Core Policy CP57 (iii) & (vii).