Agenda item

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

The Case Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and reminded members the application had been deferred at the Area East Committee meeting in September as the applicant wanted to put forward a new design that wasn’t shown in the plans at the time.

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, he then proceeded to show the site and proposed plans, including:

·         Linear format of the building and existing extension

·         The new extension would not keep the existing linear format and would sit between the existing building and neighbouring boundary.

·         The applicant had made sure there would be no parking to the North East boundary of the site after an objection from a neighbour.

·         The new extension materials to be used were Blue Lias stone and timber windows and doors with a tiled gabled roof – the roof element being the change to the original proposal.

He explained that the building is considered a non-designated heritage asset and the conservation officer had formally objected to the proposal.

The Parish Council had supported the application and one letter of objection was no longer a concern as it related to the parking that had been resolved.

His key considerations were the extension to a converted agricultural building and that any proposal should enhance and conserve the character of the original building. He considered this not the case with this proposal due to the position of the extension and there are no public benefits to offset harm caused.  There were no residential amenity concerns or highways concerns. The application therefore was recommended for refusal.

The applicant then addressed Members and some of the comments included were:

·         Thanked Councillors Charlie Hull and Tony Capozzoli for the positive support they had given to his family.

·         Pre application advice that was undertaken was positive of the proposed plans that contradicted the current Planning Officers recommendations and he expressed his disappointment.

·         Had worked with the council throughout the application process.

·         The buildings within the Wellham complex had evolved over the years.

The Ward Member Councillor Charlie Hull spoken in support of the application and some of the following views were expressed:

·         Fully supported the application, had completed a site visit and feels the plans are in keeping with the barn and area.

·         Would add value to the area and neighbours were supportive.

·         Recognised the applicant had incurred avoidable expenses relating to the application.

·         Believed the harm of the extension proposal is negligible.

·         There were a number of public benefits. The family supported the community, the local school and employed people within the community. This application supported the growth of their family and to allowed their home to grow with them.

·         Thanked the applicant for the steps taken to comply with council.

Ward Member’s Councillor Tony Capozzoli and Councillor Paul Rowsell also spoke in support of the application. Councillor Capozzoli commented that the materials to be used and the amend plans that had been submitted were in keeping with the area and would complement the building and others surrounding it.

During Members discussion, comments were made, some of which included:

·         Understood the issue with losing the linear format and the views of what it was in the past. The new extension would wrap around the building and the shape would be lost.

·         Distance between the extension and neighbouring property – would there be amenity concerns?

·         Property was not viewed from the road, it seemed a modest application with no impact visually and no neighbour complaints.

In response to a question the applicant advised that it was 1 metre from the proposed extension to the neighbouring boundary, but that the neighbour welcomed the plans as it removed windows and gave more privacy.

In response to questions the Case Officer confirmed that siting of the extension was the main concern as there would be a very small area between dwelling and neighbouring boundary. He explained that pre application advice provided had been a new member of staff and at that stage it wasn’t highlighted that there were constraints with the property being a non-designated heritage asset with it being a historical barn. He also clarified that there were now no objections with this application.

Following a short debate, it was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, for the following reason: The proposal, by reason of its size, siting, materials and design, had no demonstrably harmful impact on the character of the dwelling, visual and residential amenity, highway safety or the historic environment. The Case Officer read out conditions to include:

·         Time limit of 3 years for commencement

·         Be in accordance with approved plans

·         Materials in accordance with approved plans

·         Samples of material for roofing and stonework approved before commencement of work

·         Prohibit construction of any additional openings subsequent to completion

This was agreed by members and on being put to the vote was carried by ten votes in favour, and one against.

RESOLVED:  That planning application 20/01567/HOU be approved, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

The proposal, by reason of its size, siting, materials and design, has no demonstrably harmful impact on the character of the dwelling and causes no demonstrable harm to visual and residential amenity, highway safety or the historic environment in accordance with Policies SD1, EQ2, EQ3, TA5 & TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-28) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

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 referenced:

·         Proposed Elevations, Roof Plan & Section AA – Drawing No JK:102 A

·         Proposed Floor Plan – Drawing No JK:103 A

·         Proposed Parking Layout – Drawing No. P1

·         Block Plan – Drawing No. B1

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

03.       The external surfaces of the development shall be of materials as indicated in Drawing No. JK:102A and no other materials shall be used without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the proposed development is completed in accordance with Policy EQ2 of South Somerset Local Plan and the and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

04.       No building operations above damp proof course level of the extension shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces (stonework/roof tiles) of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, in accordance with policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

05.       Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, or other openings (including rooflights and doors) shall be formed in the extension hereby permitted, or other external alteration made without the prior express grant of planning permission.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity to accord with Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-28 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

(Voting: 10 in favour of approval, 1 against)