Agenda item

The Planning Assistant presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.

She explained to members that planning permission is required for the installation of these rooflights due to the removal of permitted development rights when planning permission was first granted in 2010.

The Planning Assistant then referred to the key considerations:

·         Overlooking

·         Loss of Privacy

·         Visual Impact

She clarified that planning guidance requires windows to be set at a minimum of 20 metres away from neighbouring properties due to overlooking issues and confirmed that the nearest property from this dwelling was in fact a distance of approximately 60 metres.  She therefore considered this to be acceptable and believed would not cause harm in the terms of overlooking or loss of privacy.  Her recommendation was therefore to approve the application for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Assistant confirmed that:

·         Planning guidance requires a 20 metre distance from window to neighbouring window

·         Original permission refused in 2007 due to overlooking issues was originally for a two storey dwelling

·         Cannot confirm exact height difference from 99A West Coker Road and the houses on Beaconfield Road, however can acknowledge this property is on elevated ground

·         The proposed rooflights would serve a bedroom, W.C. and sitting area

·         Satisfied with the tree planting scheme and believed the appropriate specimens were suitable screening types which are easily maintained.

·         The position of the escape rooflight was dictated by Building Regulation requirements and the other simply maintain the same height for uniformity.

·         Rooflights were required to make the space habitable

Susan Smith then addressed the committee.  As a local resident she spoke in objection to the application and believed the intention was to build a virtually self-contained area which is likely to be in constant use.  She reminded members that the original planning permission omitted the proposed rooflights due to the concerns of overlooking.  She also raised concern regarding the removal of trees and shrubs that helped screen the building and the additional lighting which would arise from the rooflights.  She felt it was already an over oppressive building which was out of character for the area in what was now an overdeveloped site. 

Steve Moore also a local resident spoke in objection to the application.  He questioned what had changed since the original planning permission had been granted in 2010 and did not believe anything had altered at this time to allow the rooflights to be permitted.

Mr David Dawkins the applicant then addressed the committee.  He appreciated the neighbours’ concerns, however explained the tree planting process and the species to be used in order to screen the property to the best of his ability.  He explained additional trees would be planted presently to ensure adequate screening of the bungalow and that this should ease any neighbours concerns.

Councillor Nigel Gage, Ward member raised his concern on what he felt was already a very large building with little architectural merit.  He referred to the original planning permission granted in 2007 due to concerns of overlooking and highlighted the comments made in the report stating ‘the rooflights could overlook the gardens of the properties in Beaconfield Road’.  He therefore believed there was still a concern regarding overlooking and could not support the application.

During members’ discussion, several points were made including the following:

·         Apart from overlooking, felt the building was out of character and already overbearing

·         Appreciated concerns of the neighbours but were satisfied that the distance from window to neighbouring windows was well in excess of the planning guidance

·         Questioned the original design and impact the building has had on the surrounding area, however did not consider this application on its own merit would have a further significant impact on the character of the area

·         Requested that the condition regarding the planting scheme be robust to ensure necessary and acceptable screening has been carried out.

It was then proposed and seconded that the officer’s recommendation to approve the application as set out in the agenda report.  On being put to the vote it was carried by 10 votes in favour and 3 against.

RESOLVED:

To grant consent 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 ST5 of the South Somerset Local Plan Deposit Adopted 2006 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

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.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans reference DAW01 A, DAW02 A, DAW03 , DAW05 dated as received 10.12.14 and planting scheme dated as received 16.01.15.

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

03.       All planting shown in the approved planting scheme shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the implementation of the planning consent.  Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the landscaping, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

            Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with policies ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

(voting: 10 in favour, 3 against, 0 abstentions)