Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent, read out by Member Services.  Ms Patrick stated that this application is a resubmission from an already approved 1½ storey side extension to a 2-storey version, with the major difference between the two schemes being the eaves height to enable a full height ceiling to the first floor.  She feels the precedence set in terms of scale has already been approved and the difference in the head heights on the first floor is minimal in terms of the overall scheme.

Ms Patrick referred to the drawings presented with the application which show a coloured line that represents what is approved and what they are applying for.  She acknowledged that the previously approved scheme was talked through at great length before a decision was made, but expressed the opinion that every scheme is and should be decided on its own merits and not on previous approvals.

Ms Patrick stated that the ridge height of the proposal is not changing, therefore, in her view, overshadowing to the neighbouring property will not increase significantly to that of what has already been approved.  She advised that for ease of construction this application has been presented to appease the client’s wishes and needs before the work starts on site, diminishing the need for remedial work.

Ms Patrick expressed the view that the resubmission of this scheme is in similar context to that approved at committee for a rear full height extension to a new dwelling approved under F/YR18/0579/F, with members drawing the same conclusion that even if the scale and size of the dwelling did not comply with LP12 Part D they did not consider that this would cause harm to the rural character of the locality given the positioning and dimensions of the plot.  She asked members to support the application given the nature of the site and its location along Broad Drove, where the dwellings in this area are, in her opinion, all of a substantial size given the large grounds the dwelling is located in.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the 3.4 metre gate, which she initially thought was a printing mistake, and questioned why anyone would to barricade themselves in like this.  David Rowen responded that the report does refer to the gates being out of keeping with the rural character, but officers do not feel it is so bad as to warrant refusal.  He stated that the gates were included on the previous application and the 3.4 metre height is at the centre point of the gates.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Benney stated that himself and Councillor Mrs French visited the site and, in his view, it is well out of the way, it is a large site, well shielded by trees and stables.  He acknowledged that the proposal would make the property a large dwelling, but, in his view, it is a big plot, with it not being 2-storey high but 1½ as it is using the roof.  Councillor Benney expressed the view that if the applicant wanted to build something bespoke and fulfils their needs it is an ideal place to do it as it would not result in further traffic or a drain on resources.  He feels that LP12 and LP16 are subjective reasons for refusal and, in his opinion, the proposal would enhance the area, would not be of any detriment and would be a nice place to live when built.

·         Councillor Sutton referred to Page 113 of the officer’s report and made the point that it is a 2-storey proposal as it already has permission for 1½ storey.  He expressed the view that the roofline is a bit higher than previously approved, but he does not feel there is much wrong with the proposal and it would not affect anyone.

·         Councillor Benney thanked Councillor Sutton for correcting him that it is a 2-storey dwelling and made the point that putting rooms in a roof space restricts rooms and this proposal makes them more usable.  He feels it would be a better scheme than previously approved.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor made the point that on one of the drawings it states an en-suite attached to a neighbour’s property and asked if this is one persons dwelling or more than one persons dwelling?  Nick Harding responded that it is a semi-detached property so there is a party wall.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that the property cannot be seen from the road so she does not know how it would damage the surrounding area and if someone wants to build an 8-bedroomed house the committee should not be worried about sustainability.

·         Councillor Skoulding made the point that it is only about 1 metre higher than what is approved and he cannot see any problems with it.

·         Councillor Sutton made the point that it is for members to consider whether the application is unacceptable compared to what has already been approved and, in his view, he does not consider it to be that much different to warrant refusal.

·         David Rowen stated that the location plan on Page 112 shows the configuration in terms of the adjacent property clearly and the application is not being recommended for refusal on sustainability only on design, which he recognises is subjective.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officer to impose conditions that mirror the current permission.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal would not be so different to the current planning permission as to be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.

(Councillor Cornwell had left the meeting prior to the discussion of this application and the remainder of the agenda items)