Agenda item

The erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extension to dwellinghouse 10 Westbury Gardens Higher Odcombe Yeovil

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  She confirmed the application was part retrospective and that should the application be refused consideration of enforcement action would be taken. 

The Planning Officer confirmed that there were no further updates to the report and referred to the key considerations being the impact on visual and residential amenity and believed that on balance she does not consider the proposal causes demonstrable harm to the neighbouring properties and is located in a residential road of differing styles.  Her recommendation therefore was to approve the application for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

In response to members’ questions the Planning Officer explained that planning conditions are imposed on applications at the time of approval.   Individuals have the right to re-submit an application in future which may or may not allow removal of conditions previously imposed, however each application would be assessed appropriately at that time.  She also confirmed the original single storey extension south elevation would be finished in render and remained the same for this proposal.

A representative of Odcombe Parish Council then addressed the committee who believed the additional height was overbearing to the neighbouring property with the extension built right up to the neighbouring boundary.  She confirmed the Parish Council were happy with the original application but unanimously against approval of this proposal.

Two members of the public made comments in objection to the proposal.  These included:

·         Very overbearing and oppressive.

·         Extension dominates the view.

·         Second storey is a step too far.

·         Building works and scaffolding have be ongoing for an extensive period of time causing undue stress to occupants of neighbouring property.

·         Badly designed and not in keeping with surrounding properties.

·         Insufficient gap between extension and neighbouring property.

·         Causes loss of light and dominates neighbouring bungalow.

·         Disproportionate size for the area.

·         Original single storey extension was acceptable.

The agent then addressed the committee and told members that work had now stopped on site and believed the proposal was not unduly obtrusive.  He apologised for any inconvenience caused but hoped that members would support the application.

Ward member, Councillor Gina Seaton said this proposal was overbearing and dominated the view to the neighbouring bungalow.  She said it overlooked No.12 garden and dominates their private amenity space with the extension obscuring the view and therefore would not support the application. 

Ward member, Councillor Cathy Bakewell believed the two storey extension finished in render to the side elevation was out of keeping with the streetscene and as the road sloped stood very imposing and overbearing to the neighbouring property also being in close proximity to the neighbouring boundary line.

During discussion, members raised comments including the following:

·         Render to the south elevation of the extension was not a key material used in the street scene.

·         Considered the single storey extension to be acceptable but two storey became massive and overbearing.

·         In very close proximity to the neighbouring boundary.

Following a short discussion it was proposed and seconded to refuse the application based on the reasons raised during the debate.  Members then agreed to adjourn the meeting to finalise and agree the full wording for the reason for refusal. 

Following the adjournment the Senior Planning Advisor then suggested the proposed reasons for refusal as follows:

‘The proposed development, and specifically the proposed and now part constructed two store side extension, by virtue of its inappropriate use of render to the southern elevation; its height and its close proximity to the southern boundary, would lead to an overbearing and negative visual impact on the street scene. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan and design policies in NPPF 2018’.

Members agreed with the reasons for refusal and agreed that enforcement action will not commence until consultation has taken place with the applicant and the final decision to be delegated to the Planning Officer and in consultation with the Ward Members.

On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  That Planning Application 18/02667/FUL be refused for the following reason:

The proposed development, and specifically the proposed and now part constructed two store side extension, by virtue of its inappropriate use of render to the southern elevation; its height and its close proximity to the southern boundary, would lead to an overbearing and negative visual impact on the street scene. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan and design policies in NPPF 2018.

(voting: unanimous)