Agenda item

Demolition of existing car port and garage and the erection of a double storey side extension and erection of double garage with storage area above. Replacement of windows and doors and associated improvement works.

Public Participation

Philip Stevens spoke in objection to the application

Dodie Stevens spoke in objection to the application

A statement by Lisa & David Miller was read by Dodie Stevens

Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the application

The Planning Officer, Emily Jones presented the application for Demolition of existing car port and garage and the erection of a double storey side extension and erection of double garage with storage area above. Replacement of windows and doors and associated improvement works. The application was recommended for approval.

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as an objection from Laverstock and Ford Parish Council due to the effect of the proposed development on the appearance of the area; the quality of the design; and the significant overbearing impact and loss of outlook.

There had also been 11 third-party representations objecting to the scheme.

Photos and elevation drawings were explained. Some shrubbery, a tree and hedging had been removed from the site since the presentation photos were taken. The shared drive with Lark House was indicated.

Street scene, access, ridge heights, neighbouring dwelling positions, retaining wall, existing property with car port were all detailed by the Officer.

A previous proposal included the development to be clad in timber with render. Following some changes, the application now included materials to fit in with the character of the area. A single-story garage was also proposed with a terrace. 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. There were none.

Members of the public, as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

The main points raised included that there was strong objection to the garage element and the positioning in relation to the neighbouring properties, in particular there were concerns relating to the proximity of the roofline, the 6m height, the scope for future development of the garage into an additional dwelling, changed outlook of the area, loss of green space resulting in increased flooding and impact on nearby properties, infilling, placement and scale of the garage and hardstanding, felling of trees, overall negative impact on the immediate area.

The Parish Council had objected to the application.

The applicant’s agent addressed the provisions made to address the concerns.

Local Member Cllr Ian McLennan then spoke in objection to the application, noting that Laverstock Park had few houses, with each being quite large in its own setting, and not impacting adversely on each other.

Little mention had been made of Lark house; however it was entangled with Cobbins due to the shared drive. The height and size of what was proposed would diminish Lark House.

CP57 was supposed to have high quality design and place shaping, the size of this development would adversely shape the place.

When coming up from the Avenue towards the site, you see Cobbins on the end, at the moment it was not obtrusive. The extension was proposed to be 15ft in width and at a right angle, the length of the new extension was the same length of the existing house. The proposal was almost the equivalent to doubling the size of the existing house. Coupled with the rear extension and the terrace.

There would also be a negative effect on Oak House which faced directly on to the proposed extension. The terrace would overlook Slinfold at the far side.

Cobbins was the same height as Oak Ridge and looked down on Slinfold and would impact on it. 

Lark House would lose the green shielding and would instead get a visibility screen of the top of the huge roof of the proposed garage.

The double sized garage which was 5.1m high with a pitched roof, originally included windows and was proposed to be placed right at the boundary of Lark House for no reason. It would be nearer to the neighbouring dwelling than the applicants dwelling, Cobbins.

Only 3 parking spaces were needed however, many more were proposed. It appeared like an opportunity for there to be a future dwelling.

Residents were not against a normal extension here, but the garage should remain attached to the dwelling in some way and be less imposing.

Cllr McLennan then moved a motion of refusal against Officer recommendation, stating the reasons as above with reference to CP57, H31, C24 CP64. This was seconded by Cllr Dalton.

The Committee was invited to discuss the application, the main points included the number of parking spaced included within the proposals and associated increased flooding.

The placement of the garage in particular the proximity to the neighbouring dwelling in comparison to the distance from Cobbins.

The shared driveway and access. The PC objection. The terrace and associated overlooking.

The scope for development on the site was acknowledged by the committee, however the impact of the proposed size and in particular, the position of the garage and parking spaces was felt to be over development and would have a detrimental impact on the area and neighbouring amenity.

Following debate the Committee confirmed they had heard and seen all relevant visual materials, and voted on the motion of refusal against officer recommendation, with the reasons stated.

It was:

Resolved:

that application 20/07918/FUL be refused against Officer recommendation for the following reasons:

The proposal, by reason of its massing, scale, size, bulk, and excessively large hard surfacing/parking would result in the overdevelopment of the site and loss of much of the landscape features, and would be incongruous with the verdant, spacious character of the surrounding area. The scale of the garage and its proximity to the façade of Lark House would have an overbearing and overshadowing impact on the amenity of that dwelling, and the proposed balcony would result in undue overlooking of the occupants of adjacent dwelling, Slinfold. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Core Policies 57 and CP64 and saved policies H31 and C24 of the Wiltshire Local Plan 2015.