Agenda item

Replacement and raising of roof and associated vertical extension to create bedrooms on the first floor and replacement garage (resubmission of PL/2021/09030) and retrospective permission for a garden room single storey infill addition to rear.

Public Participation:

·       Cole Bowden – spoke in objection to the application

·       David Rose – spoke in objection to the application

·       Peter Bevan – spoke in objection to the application

·       Ian Lucas – spoke in support of the application

·       Alvin Howard – Agent – spoke in support of the application

·       Kate Hayes - Longbridge Deverill Parish Council – spoke in objection to the application

Kenny Green, Development Management Area Team Leader introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be approved, for the replacement and raising of roof and associated vertical extension to create bedrooms on the first floor and replacement garage (resubmission of PL/2021/09030) and retrospective permission for a garden room single storey infill addition to the rear).

The officer advised that the key issues for consideration included, the principle of development, as well as impact on visual amenity, heritage assets, neighbour amenity and highway/parking effects.

The Committee was advised that the property had been subject to a number of planning applications, which included an extant approved application that allowed the raising of the roof to create an upper floor level as well as extend to the side and rear.

The Committee were advised that the current proposal was a materially different design to the extant approved scheme and would also provide upper floor accommodation, but officers argued it would be complied with relevant polices of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy, the made Neighbourhood Plan, the Village Design Statement for Hilperton and the NPPF, and accordingly was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The report summarised the responses to the statutory and the public consultations, and the Committee was informed that 15 comments of objection had been received from the public consultation, and that the parish council also objected.

There were no technical questions asked by the Committee.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Ernie Clark spoke in relation to a number of concerns he had regarding the application. These included the scale of the development, the visual impact on the surrounding area, the relationship to adjoining properties, the design - bulk, height, and general appearance, the environmental or highway impacts, and car parking. Cllr Clark felt that the application seemed to be at odds with previous permissions given on the site, and asked if there was a limit to the number of applications for one site.

In response to issues raised during public participation and the Unitary Member statement, the planning officer explained that when comparing the original dwelling, the extant approved scheme and what was now proposed, the proposal in front of the committee would account for approximately an extra 2% footprint on total site and was not considered as overdevelopment. Compared to the extant approved upper floor addition, planning officers felt that the current application was an improvement in design terms and would be more in keeping with its current surroundings, and with the recommended use of obscure glazed windows to the rear to be secured by condition, the proposed development would not result in material neighbouring harm.

So that the Committee had something to debate Cllr Ernie Clark moved a motion to refuse the planning application for reasons of overlooking and contrary to Core Policy 57, criterion 3, 6 and 7.  This motion was not supported by the Committee and Cllr Mike Sankey moved a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the report. This was seconded by Cllr Stewart Palmen.

A debate followed where Members commented on the need to consider the application on planning grounds and not personal reasons.

At the conclusion of the debate, 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:

o   Location and Block Plan - Drg No. 2470/BR/1 Rev A

o   Block Plan (dimensioned) – Drg No. 2470/BR/2 Rev A

o   Existing Bungalow – Drg No. 2470/BR/7

o   Proposed Elevations – Drg No. 2470/BR/3 Rev B

o   Proposed Floor Plans – Drg No. 2470/BR/4 Rev E

o   Block Plan with parking spaces – Drg No. 2470/BR/6 Rev A

o   Proposed Replacement Garage Plan – Drg No. 2470/BR/8

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

3.    The vertical sections of upper floor windows in the east elevation of the extension hereby approved shall be glazed with obscured glass only to an obscurity level of no less than level 4 and they shall be permanently fixed with a ventilation stay restricting the opening of the window, this prior to the first floor being first brought into use; and thereafter, the obscured glass shall be permanently maintained for the lifetime of the development.

REASON: In the interests of residential amenity and privacy.

4.    The flat roofed part of the garden room hereby approved shall not be used as an external amenity area or roof garden.

REASON: In the interests of residential amenity and privacy.

5.    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), the garage hereby permitted shall not be converted to habitable accommodation.

REASON: To secure the retention of adequate parking provision, in the interests of highway safety and in the interest of neighbour amenity.

6.    Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending those Orders with or without modification), no development within Part 1, Classes A-E shall take carried out to the extended dwellinghouse hereby permitted or within its curtilage.

REASON: In the interests of the neighbour amenity of the area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to consider individually whether planning and in the interest of visual amenity.

7.    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 window, dormer window or rooflight, other than those shown on the approved plans, shall be inserted within the upper floor elevations of the dwellinghouse or within the northern elevation of the garage hereby permitted.

REASON: In the interests of residential amenity and privacy