Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/24/020

Householder planning application - two storey front and side extension

Householder planning application - two storey front and side extension

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

Pakenham Parish Council had not objected to the proposal which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, for the reasons set out in Paragraph 25 of Report No DEV/WS/24/020.

Members were advised that the original proposal was described as a “two-storey side extension” however, as the southeast elevation was considered to be the principal elevation, the proposal was amended to “two-storey front and side extension”.

In addition, following comments made by Officers, amendments had been made to the application so that the amended red line plan included both accesses to Mill Road and Broadway, and the front porch was removed from the existing plans and elevations as it had been drawn in error.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Speakers:    Councillor Andrew Speed (Ward Member) spoke in support of the application

                   Phil Cobbold (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Ian Houlder posed a question in relation to development in the countryside and referenced a previous application considered by the Committee. The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the application referenced was for a replacement dwelling, as opposed to an extension, and there was different policy considerations.

Councillor Carol Bull voiced support for the application which she viewed as an improvement to the existing property and with the inclusion of obscure glazed windows on the southeast fenestration she considered there to be no loss of neighbouring amenity.

Accordingly, Councillor Bull proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that Members’ interpretation of Policies DM2 and DM24 was subjective and the inclusion of obscure glazing was considered reasonable to protect neighbouring amenity, meaning the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked as a Risk Assessment would not be considered necessary.

The Planning Assistant then verbally advised on the conditions that could be appended to a permission, if granted, which included a condition in respect of obscure glazed windows on the southeast eleveation.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that 

Decision 

Planning permission be GRANTED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, as it was considered that the application did not harm the character and design of the existing dwelling or the surrounding area, or adversely affect neighbouring amenity, subject to the following conditions: 

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than three years from the date of this permission

2.   The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans and documents, unless otherwise stated (see decision notice for plans)

3.   Before the extension hereby permitted is first brought into use, the first-floor windows of the southeast elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass to Pilkington glass level 4 privacy or an equivalent standard and shall consist only of non-operable fixed lights and shall be retained in such form in perpetuity.

4.   The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the materials detailed on approved drawing no.12 received on the 4 March 2024