Agenda item

Application Proposal: The erection of 1 No. attached dwellinghouse and erection of extension to front of existing dwellinghouse

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application which was for a two storey extension to provide a 3 bedroom dwelling.  He advised that the impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene was not acceptable and was therefore recommending refusal of the application.

In response to questions from members, the Planning Officer confirmed the width of the proposed dwelling and advised that the proposed property was not within a Conservation Area.

The Agent, Mr S Sherlock advised that the proposed building was 6 metres wide and the existing building was 5.8 metres.  He concurred that the area was full of generously proportioned properties and noted that the proposed property being only slightly wider matched the existing properties on the estate. He referred to the staggering of properties on the estate and in particular two properties opposite not being consistent with the fixed building line.    

Ward Member, Cllr. Angie Singleton advised that no objections had been received from local residents or the Town Council.  She felt that the aerial view showed an open estate but was not the impression that she got when walking through the estate.  She noted that a caravan was currently located in front and did not feel that a house would be any more harmful.  She was of the opinion that the scale and siting of the development was not out of character and would add to the housing numbers for Crewkerne. 

Ward Member, Cllr. Mike Best concurred with the comments of his fellow ward member and felt that there would be plenty of space around the building and the proposal would not detract from the existing area. 

Ward Member, Cllr. Marcus Barrett also commented that the estate was not as open plan as it appeared on the aerial view.  He concurred with the views of the other ward members and agreed that the application should be approved.

During a short discussion on the application, members felt that the proposal was an acceptable form of development and there was no need to preserve the building line.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation for the reason suggested by the Planning Officer.

Conditions suggested by the Planning Officer and agreed with Members included the following:

Time Limit

Approved Plans

Boundary treatment

Parking spaces

Drainage measures

On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application subject to conditions was unanimously agreed.