Agenda item

Proposal: The erection of a single storey extension to dwelling.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, proceeded to show the site and proposed plans. Updates:

·         The Conservation Specialist had given their view on the proposed scheme and formally objected to the proposals based on the property being considered as a non-designated heritage asset and that the integrity of the original barn would fundamentally change the character.

·         There is no permission for change of use of land to allow for the parking area but this does not bear on the consideration for the application of this extension.

·         Amended plans were submitted by the applicant on Thursday 3^rd September showing amendments, which included a full apex gable roof as opposed to a flat roof. However these were incomplete and could not be considered as valid.

His key considerations were the extension to a converted agricultural building (EQ2) and the impact on a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (EQ3) and Materials not in keeping. In conclusion the application was recommended for refusal.

One resident then addressed the committee in objection to the application. Some of his comments included:

·         Without the small objection of the parking space, he would be happy that the plans were approved.

·         The extra parking space would require the applicants to cross his land to park there.

·         There is already adequate space for parking.

The applicants then spoke in favour of their application. Her comments included:

·         Tried to include a minimally invasive design that was approved from pre planning with 2 advisory notes;

1.    To consider windows being overlooked by neighbours

2.    To show adequate parking

·         They were advised to proceed with the application.

·         Felt the flat roof was not sympathetic to the area after speaking to a local neighbour and submitted amended plans for a full gabled roof.

·         Parish Council gave Full approval.

·         Nothing had been noted on the pre planning application referencing the

Non-designated Heritage Asset

·         The existing glazing is not of high quality and is in poor state of repair with poor heat efficiency.

·         Felt that the option to extend on the other side of the property, which was proposed in the planning report, would impact the original layout of the courtyard and the cutting down of a mature tree.

·         Their understanding was that the land for proposed parking had equestrian use and so there was scope to put down hardstanding in front of gateways.

Councillor Mike Lewis spoke to say that the application being considered today is not what the applicant wants.

Ward Member Councillor Charlie Hull was in support of the applicants proposal and doesn’t feel the extension will detract from the building after visiting the property.

Ward Member Councillor Tony Capozzoli commented that the extension roughly mirrors what is already existing and supports the application. He would like to see a condition that the roof is an apex roof.

Ward Member Councillor Paul Rowsell echoed Councillor Lewis in that the application is not what the applicant wants, and it could be amended accordingly and re-presented.

The Chairman then confirmed with the applicant that they would like the application to be determined with the gabled roof and suggested deferring the application.

The Lead Specialist, Development Management then confirmed that the applicant could submit amended plans. She also explained that the consideration of the shape of the extensions deferred from the linear nature of the existing building, which was also part of the objection from the case officer.

After being put to the vote, members voted unanimously to defer the application.

RESOLVED: That Planning application 20/01567 be DEFERRED once it became clear that the applicant wanted to revise the scheme. The application will not automatically be heard at the next Area East Committee, but instead will follow the Council’s Scheme of Delegation process once again once the amended plans have been received and consulted on and will only return to the Committee if required by the Scheme of Delegation. 

(Voting: unanimous in favour)