Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/17/023

Householder Planning Application - (i) single storey side extension (ii) raising of rear lean-to roof height (iii) 2 metre high timber gate and fence to side (iv) replacement front door and 2no. replacement front windows and (v) 2no. rooflights in rear elevation

Householder Planning Application - (i) single storey side extension (ii) raising of rear lean-to roof height (iii) 2 metre high timber gate and fence to side (iv) replacement front door and 2no. replacement front windows and (v) 2no. rooflights in rear elevation

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 3 May 2017 following consideration by the Delegation Panel; the application had been presented before the Panel at the request of Councillor David Nettleton, one of the local Ward Members (Risbygate).  A Member site visit was held prior to the May meeting. 

At the May Committee meeting a number of Members had cited concerns with the application in relation to Policy DM24 and the impact on neighbours’ amenity; particularly with regard to the side extension element of the development and the impact this would have on the shared access.

Accordingly, the Committee had resolved to defer consideration of the application in order to enable Officers to work with the applicant to seek improvements to the scheme where possible, in order to try and reduce the impact on the neighbours’ amenity.

Following the deferral amended plans had been submitted by the applicant which reduced the width of the single storey side extension to a maximum of 1.322 metres at the rear, tapering to 1.225 metres at the front.  This resulted in a continuous gap of 0.85 metres to the side boundary (an increase in gap from 0.75 metres in the original plans).

Bury St Edmunds Town Council continued to raise no objection and Officers were still recommending that the application be approved subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 18 of Report No: DEV/SE/17/023.

Speakers:    Samantha Reed (neighbour) spoke against the application

                   Councillor David Nettleton (Ward Member) spoke against the             application

The Committee largely continued to raise concerns with the application despite the amendment which had been made to the plans.

Councillor Julia Wakelam again made reference to Policy DM24 and the impact on neighbours’ amenity.  Councillor Wakelam did not consider that the amended plans had in any way addressed this issue and proposed that the application be refused because of this.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Alaric Pugh.

Other Members also spoke against the application, with a number making comments with regard to the design of the scheme, which they considered inappropriate for the property, being within a Conservation Area.

Following which Councillor Wakelam asked to amend her motion for refusal to include the design element as a second reason, alongside the loss of amenity.  Councillor Pugh as seconder of the motion also supported this addition.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that should Members vote to refuse the application this would not need to be subject to a risk assessment and would, therefore, not be a ‘minded to’ resolution.

The Officer also made the Committee aware that the Council’s Conservation Officer was content with the design scheme, and that the impact on amenity was difficult to defend in terms of the degree of impact the proposal would have.

Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion, 2 against and with 2 abstentions, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.   The proposal’s impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area; and

2.   The impact on the neighbours’ amenity caused by the side extension element of the development.