Agenda item

Erection of single storey front, rear and first floor extensions and replacement roofs with roof lights.

Public Participation

Ben Williams was unable to attend therefore Democratic Services Officer, Ben Fielding read out a provided statement in support of the application.

Councillor Mel Allsop spoke on behalf of Lydiard Millicent Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined an erection of single storey front, rear and first floor extensions and replacement roofs with roof lights

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development; impact on the character, appearance, visual amenity of the locality; impact on the residential amenity; access, parking and highway safety.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application.Details were sought on the distance between the second storey of the proposal and the neighbouring bungalow; which was clarified to be 7 metres from the east boundary and in excess of 24 metres from the north boundary. The make up of the neighbouring properties of the Beeches was queried and it was clarified by the officer that the applicant would not be able to demolish the existing property to build a replacement as this was not within the proposal. It was also clarified that though the neighbourhood plan was not silent within this proposal, it did not specifically relate to this location.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Steve Bucknell then spoke regarding the application. Councillor Bucknell stated that the proposal looked to turn a modest 3-bedroom single storey bungalow into a family home with an additional 2 storeys and a total of 5 bedrooms. In turn, the proposal would increase the ridge height of the property from 7 metres to 12 metres. The impact of parking for the proposal was stressed, with there being no bus services to Lydiard Millicent or nearby shops; therefore meaning that cars would be necessary with there potentially being 5 cars required by the property due to the proposed number of bedrooms. This would therefore potentially cause issues as the proposals showed no increase in parking provision, with the current drive suitable at most for 3 cars; thus causing cars to have to park on the narrow road.

Councillor Bucknell acknowledged that to an extent the report was true when it referred to a mix of homes; however these follow a definite pattern with the outside ring of homes being 2 or 3 storey family homes, with the inside ring being bungalows. Regarding the bungalows, Councillor Bucknell stated that there are Core Policies which require the Council as an authority to build lifetime homes, suitable for those who want to downsize in their retirement years, it would therefore be contradictory to replace such a bungalow with a family house.

Councillor Bucknell stated that the proposals were contrary to Wiltshire Core strategy Core Policy CP57 (i) (iii) (vi) (vii) (xi) (Jan 2015) as the proposal would break the current pattern of The Beeches, which would impact the amenities of existing occupants through potential parking issues and though Highways stated that the proposed parking wouldn’t breach standards, these were minimal.

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Tom Rounds and seconded by Councillor Trotman, 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 Steve Bucknell and seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant. The reason being that following debate and receipt of representations at the meeting, members considered that the development by virtue of its scale, bulk, mass, form, positioning and design features would result in harm to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality; and harm to and loss of residential amenity by virtue of overbearing impact, loss of outlook; loss of privacy and overlooking and loss of daylighting. The proposals were therefore contrary to Wiltshire Core strategy Core Policy CP57 (i) (iii) (vi) (vii) (xi) (Jan 2015). It was also referenced that the proposals result in a discordant development out of character with the locality resulting in harm to visual amenity; do not retain accommodation suitable for elderly and vulnerable persons contrary to para 6.55 of the WCS; and would result in harm to and loss of existing residential amenity for neighbouring properties.

During the debate the issues included that having used Google Street view to travel down The Beeches, the proposal would look odd with the inner ring being bungalows and the outer ring being larger family homes. It was acknowledged that The Beeches most likely had been constructed to meet the diverse needs of the community of Lydiard Millicent and that such a proposal would set a precedent within the inner ring of bungalows. Furthermore, it was argued that the proposal would be conflict with Core Policy 57 (vii) as the proposal would not be in character with the neighbouring inner buildings. Regarding the design of The Beeches, it was argued that the neighbourhood had been constructed with the future in mind by providing family accommodation and then accommodation for the older to later move into and to allow this proposal could potentially break this up.

Further issues that were debated were that the proposal would not have an overbearing impact as there were 3 storey properties immediately opposite the proposal. It was also argued that the neighbourhood impact of loss of sight and warmth was not addressed by Core Policies and that regarding parking, it would be legal for the applicant to park on the road.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

To refuse contrary to officer recommendation as the proposals result in a discordant development out of character with the locality resulting in harm to visual amenity; do not retain accommodation suitable for elderly and vulnerable persons contrary to para 6.55 of the WCS; and would result in harm to and loss of existing residential amenity for neighboring properties.

Refused for the following Reason:

The development by virtue of its scale, bulk, mass, form, positioning and design features would result in harm to the character, appearance, and visual amenity of the locality; and harm to and loss of residential amenity by virtue of overbearing impact, loss of outlook; loss of privacy and overlooking and loss of daylighting. The Proposals is therefore contrary to Wiltshire Core strategy Core Policy CP57 (i) (iii) (vi) (vii) (xi) (Jan 2015).