Agenda item

Demolition of existing conservatory, the erection of a single storey and first floor extension along with the formation of a raised terrace.

(Councillor Sarah Dyke declared a personal, but non-prejudicial interest as she is a resident of the village)

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to show photographs and plans to show the proposal. He advised that the three gables on the rear extension will all be below the height of the existing roof ridge and will not be visible from the front of the property. He advised that it was recommended that the application be approved.

Miss D Hammet, a representative of the Parish Meeting addressed the Committee. She explained that the extension was not in-keeping with the area and that most extensions in the village compliment and retain the charm of the village. She advised that this was a prominent historic building and that this was an extensive and contemporary designed extension, which would affect the neighbour’s amenity.

Mrs A Hopkins spoke in objection to the application. Her comments included;

·         It is against the design guide. The extension is enormous and will ruin the character of the building.

·         Cladding is not in-keeping.

·         There will be different tiles on the rear of the property and extension.

·         The extension will be visible as the property sits at an angle to the road.

·         The design and access statement submitted by the applicant suggests that there will be further extensions to the property.

Further photographs which had been submitted by another objector were shown.

Mr A Jarvis, the agent, addressed members of the Committee. He advised that the timber cladding was chosen as it was lightweight and would weather and become grey over time to blend in with the landscape. He advised that the extension would be single storey past the point which it would project further than the neighbour’s property. He suggested that the extension would not dominate the landscape and was only an 18% increase on the exiting footprint. He hoped that this carefully considered extension would be approved.

Mrs V Pothecary, representing her son who was the applicant, addressed members. She advised that her son had obtained pre-application advice and notified the immediate neighbours. She advised that the owner of Rosebank did not raise any concern and has not objected to the application. She also advised that the other immediate neighbour had not submitted an objection to the planning application. She suggested that the application complied with the local plan.

Councillor Mike Beech, Ward Member, advised members that he was not in favour of the application and that he thought it would dominate over the adjoining property, Rosebank and would result in a loss of privacy.

During the discussion, the Area Lead Planning Officer advised that pre-application advice had been published as it formed part of the applicants’ submission, which was not unusual. He also confirmed that the property was not in a Conservation Area, nor was it a listed building. He also clarified that the wording ‘Cucklington Parish Council’ within the report was an error and that it should rear ‘Cucklington Parish Meeting’.

Members discussed the materials proposed and sought clarification from the agent over the roof tiles to be used.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application should be approved as per the agenda report.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 6 votes in support and 5 votes against.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 18/00219/FUL be approved as per officer recommendation for the following reason;

01.       The proposal, by reason of its size, scale and materials, respects the character of the area and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity in accordance with the aims and objectives of policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.       No work shall be carried out on site unless a sample of the larch cladding has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

03.       No new stonework shall be constructed on site unless full details of the new natural stonework walls, including the materials, coursing, bonding, mortar profile, colour, and texture along with a written detail of the mortar mix, have been be provided in writing; this shall be supported with a sample panel to be made available on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details, and the sample panel shall remain available for inspection throughout the duration of the work.

            Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to comply with saved policy EQ2 (General Development) of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

04.       No work shall be carried out on site unless a sample of the roof tile has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

05.       Roofing works and bats - all works affecting the existing roof and loft space shall be commenced, and temporary openings created by the works shall be re-sealed, during the months of April, September and October only.  All existing bat roost access points shall be retained.  The works shall be undertaken in accordance will all other measures in the 'Bat Mitigation Plan' (Appendix II, 'Daytime Bat and Nesting Bird Survey Report', Sedgehill Ecology Services, January 2017).

            Reason: For the conservation and protection of species of biodiversity importance in accordance with NPPF and Policy EQ4 of the South Somerset Local Plan, and to ensure compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and The Habitats Regulations 2017.

06.       The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be those as identified within the planning application and no other materials unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

            Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to comply with saved policy EQ2 (General Development) of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

07.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Details and drawings received on 19 January 2018, drawings received on 02 February 2018 and amended drawings received by email from the agent on 12 March 2018.

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

08.       The windows in the south elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall be non-opening below 1.7metres, measured from the internal floor of the room, which shall thereafter be retained.  There shall be no alteration or additional windows in this elevation without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to comply with saved policy EQ2 (General Development) of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

Informatives:

01.       The applicants attention is drawn to the following should there be swallows present within the site.

Swallows and their nests are fully protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which makes it illegal to intentionally kill, injure or take any migratory bird. It is illegal to intentionally damage or destroy the nest, eggs, or young of a swallow while it is being built or in use.

(Voting: 6 votes in support and 5 votes against)