Agenda item

Householder Planning Application - (i) single storey front extension and (ii) two storey side front and rear extension

Householder Planning Application - (i) single storey front extension and (ii) two storey side front and rear extension

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in light of the Officer recommendation for refusal (for the reasons set out in Paragraph 29 of Report No DEV/WS/20/019) being contrary with the ‘support’ offered by Brandon Town Council.

As part of his presentation the Planning Officer included three videos of the site which he took the Committee through by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Members were also advised that since publication of the agenda an email had been received from Brandon Central Ward Member Councillor Victor Lukaniuk who stated that he supported the view of Brandon Town Council; in that the plot was sizeable and he did not think the proposal would be overbearing.  He also highlighted that there had been no representations made by neighbours. 

The Planning Officer further advised that an email had also been received from fellow Brandon Central Ward Member Councillor Phil Wittam who concurred with all comments made by Councillor Lukaniuk.

Speaker:      James Betts (applicant) had submitted a statement in support of the application which was read out by the Democratic Services Officer

Councillor David Palmer commenced the debate by speaking in favour of the application and stressing that no neighbouring residents had objected to the application.  He, therefore, proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Richard Alecock.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that if Members were minded to approve the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, then the decision making policy would be invoked and a risk assessment would be produced for further consideration by the Committee in order to carefully consider the impact on amenity which the Planning Authority were duty bound to do, irrespective of whether neighbouring residents had made representations.

Upon being put to the vote and with 6 voting for the motion (minded to approve, contrary to the Officer recommendation) and with 10 against, the Chair declared the motion lost.

Further debate then took place with a number of the Committee voicing concern at the proposed scheme. 

Questions were posed as to whether the applicant would consider amending the proposal; in response to which the Planning Officer explained that the Planning Authority sought to negotiate with the applicant in order to explore mitigation in the design, however, the applicant had stated that they did not wish to amend their application.

Councillor Ian Houlder then moved that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

Upon being put to the vote and with 10 voting in favour and 6 against it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Policies DM2 and DM24 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document (2015) permit development in locations such as this providing that the proposal respects the scale and design of the existing dwelling and also that it respects the character and appearance of the wider areas.

The extension is generously scaled and prominent. It has a maximum depth of over 16 metres and an overall height materially greater than the host dwelling of 1.2 metres. It also includes a forward facing two storey gable plus an eaves line higher than the host.

The scale, height and visual prominence of the extension, including its higher ridge and eaves line, make this an intrusive addition that very clearly does not respect the character of the host dwelling, leading to a bulky and poorly articulated addition. In this regard it is concluded that the proposal does not respect the character, scale or design of the host property leading to material conflict with Policy DM24.

Furthermore, whilst the wider area is characterised by a great variety of property types, and as a consequence has a very mixed character, it nevertheless is considered the case that an extension of this excessive scale, in this location, will appear as a bulky, awkward and dominant addition to the property in a readily visible location. Material harm to the character and appearance of the area would result, proving contrary therefore to the provisions of the Joint Development Management Policies Document, Policies DM2 and DM24 and Core Strategy policy CS5, as well as the design provisions within the NPPF (Section 12).

2. Policy DM24 seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the amenities of nearby properties. This supports the general provisions in the NPPF in relation to amenity. Whilst the dwelling is located centrally within a generous plot there are a number of dwellings in close proximity. In particular, to the south east, are the single storey dwellings at 8, 9, and 10 The Orchard. These properties back onto the site, across a rear access footpath and whilst at a slightly higher level benefit only from very modest rear gardens.

In this regard the proposal will be prejudicial to the reasonable amenities, in particular of those nearby properties on The Orchards. It is accepted that no windows other than the en-suite and landing windows are proposed on the elevation facing these properties, which could be conditioned to be obscure glazed and limited to those applied for the overall scale of this side extension added to its proximity to and the very modest depth of the neighbouring gardens, means that it will present as an overbearing addition that will be materially harmful to the reasonable amenities of the neighbouring dwellings through visual intrusion and adverse effects upon outlook.

On this basis it is considered that the proposal fails to meet the provisions of DM24 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document 2015 in relation to protecting amenity, and also, therefore, that it further fails the requirements of the NPPF that seek to protect the amenities of all existing residents.

(On conclusion of this item the Chair permitted a short comfort break and asked that an adjournment slide be displayed in the live stream, before reconvening the virtual meeting and taking a roll-call of those present.)