Agenda item

Construction of painted timber bike store to front of dwelling. Install window with rendered surround and painted cladding below.

Public Participation

Dr Nicholas Arnold spoke in support of the application.

Mrs Robyn Arnold spoke in support of the application.

The Committee noted a correction to the report due to typographical errors, which involved the applicants name and the recommendation as detailed in para 1. 

The Planning Officer, Sarah Hill presented the report on the application, which was retrospective, for the construction of a painted timber bike store to the front of a dwelling and to install a window with rendered surround and painted cladding below.

The main issues which were considered to be material to the determination of the application were noted as:

·       Principle of development, policy and planning history;

·       Design, scale and impact on the amenity of the area;

·       Other matters

The application had generated a response of no comment from Salisbury City Council and 3 letters of objection from members of the public.

The site had a previous 2016 permission for alterations to the garage, to implement a window and brick surround.

The timber bike store sat forward and was not covered under permitted development.

The application was recommended for refusal.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was noted that the door in the wooden frontage to the old garage are led to underfloor storage, however no details had been included on the submitted plans. 

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application. Some of the main points included that the applicant had not understood that alternative materials could not be used to those specified on permission, when carrying out the alterations to the garage conversion.

Reference was made to one of the objectors’ positions at Wiltshire Council and that only 3 objections had been received, with the suggestion that the majority of local residents did not object.

The applicant believed that the lack of conformity was in line with the varied styles found along the street, adding that cladding was a material used on many houses in the locality and that they were willing to paint or stain in any way deemed appropriate.

The Bike shed was noted as providing storage for means of alternative transport and as such being supportive to the wellbeing of the family.

The Divisional Member, Cllr Dr Mark McClelland who was not in attendance, had called the application in to committee, to enable consideration in public, to ensure public confidence in the outcome.

Cllr Hocking moved the motion of Refusal, in line with Officer recommendation, noting that he did not mind the appearance of the bike shed, however it was the cladding on the garage which did not match the previous planning permissions which he did not approve of.

The motion was seconded by Cllr Bridget Wayman.

Cllr Hocking also noted the reason the application had been called to Committee, was so that the application could be debated in public for transparency. Cllr Hocking asked for clarification on whether the Committee could approve the bike shed part of the application and not the garage, it was explained that the application could not be divided up and must be considered as a whole.

The Committee then discussed the application, some of the main points included concern that should the application be approved, it would set a precedent for other applicants to carry out works which were not within what had been granted permission for. 

The Committee considered the misunderstanding of the applicant in not realising that the shed would require planning permission, noting that it was due to the position being forward of the Principal elevation of the dwellinghouse, however felt that if the garage works as approved in 2016 had been carried out as granted, then the shed may not have brought any objections.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee voted on the motion of refusal in line with officer recommendation.

It was;

Resolved:

That application PL/2023/01136 be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposed amendments to the external material treatment of the converted garage to the front of the application site by reason of poor design, deviation from the previously approved plans and visual impact on the street scene, is considered of detriment to the character of the dwelling and broader setting. The inconsistency of materials, incongruous appearance and poor design quality is considered contrary to policy CP57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and guidance contained within the NPPF.