Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 22/01990/PNAA be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 142 minutes 08 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer advised of the following updates:

·         An extension of time had been agreed until the 5 December 2022.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/01990/PNAA supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Councillor Simon Bloxham declared that he knew the applicant personally. He was advised by the Legal Advisor that whilst this was not a DPI, this was a declarable interest and he should remove himself from this item.

In response to a question from Councillor David Levett, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the proposal was similar in height to neighbouring properties. The roof height of this property would be 8.48 metres, where number 36 is approximately 8.3 metres and numbers 45 and 43 were approximately 8.5 metres in height.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the roof height was partially determined by the requirement for it to be the same pitch as the roof of the existing dwelling.

The Chair invited Ms Diane Burleigh to speak against the item.

Ms Burleigh thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         She was speaking on behalf of Pirton Parish Council who felt that the height would adversely affect this section of the Lane.

·         While the height of the roof has been reduced and it would no longer be the tallest, it would still be one of the tallest.

·         The differing heights of the dwellings on Royal Oak Lane is part of its charm.

·         28 to 34 Royal Oak Lane are from a similar date and are sat back from the road, but the property would not be hidden from public view all year round.

·         Number 34 is clearly part of a distinct group of hoses and changing one would be out of character with the other dwellings in the group.

·         The property is most comparable to 28, 30 and 32, not number 36 and these neighbouring properties to which is compares would have grounds to claim the proposals would have an adverse impact on their homes.

·         The impact on amenity is not limited to overlooking, privacy or loss of light and the impact the height would have on number 32 would mean these was an impact on amenity.

·         Should approval be granted, there should be two further conditions included, one to ensure the first floor is in the same brick as other bungalows and an Article 4 direction placed on future developments into the roof space.

There were no points of clarification from Members and the Chair thanked Ms Burleigh for her presentation.

The Chair invited Councillor Claire Strong to speak against the item, as Member Advocate.

Councillor Strong thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         Due to the unusual nature of the application, she felt it was worthwhile calling this into the Committee to consider, specifically with concerns over the height of the expansion.

·         Even with the reduction proposed, it is a large extension and it will affect the street scene.

·         The views of residents did not match those of the Officer in their report, as has been detailed in residents’ objections.

·         This application should still be thought of as a planning application and consideration given to the impact of the development.

·         The Committee should also take into consideration the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan and they should recognise that proposals should reinforce the rural character of the village and parish, as set out in ways including height, scale and construction materials.

·         If the Committee felt there was an impact on this part of Royal Oak Lane by these proposals, then they should refuse.

·         Otherwise they should request the Officer return to the applicant and find ways in which the height of the roof could be further reduced.

·         Following this a formal planning application should be submitted.

There were no points of clarification from Members and the Chair thanked Councillor Strong for her contribution.

The Chair invited Mr Colin Weatherall Morris to speak in support of the item.

Mr Weatherall Morris thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         He was the agent applicant for this house project.

·         The use of cladding does not form part of this proposal and the building will be extended using brick worked as detailed in submitted documents and the Officer report.

·         The pitch of the existing roof is 40 degrees, and this revised proposal retains this to meet Class AA requirements. This reduction in height was achieved by reducing the height of the first floor windows.

·         This property formed an end of a row of houses, which as referred to by the Officer acted as bookends to other properties on the street.

·         The building is not currently in good repair and the proposals would have a benefit to the street scene.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Sean Nolan, Mr Weatherall Morris advised that it would be facing brickwork on the exterior to match existing building and no cladding would be used later on in construction. The hatching in the plans was to denote new wall not a specific material.

In response to points raised during the public presentations, the Senior Planning Officer advised:

·         He maintained view that this would not have an impact on the Conservation Area, as it is located too far from it and is a fairly small development to a large bungalow.

·         The bungalows are not listed buildings and there were no planning reasons to refuse this application based on the height.

·         It was comparable to many other two storey dwellings close by.

Councillor Simon Bloxham left the Chamber at 22.24.

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed and Councillor David Levett seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 22/01990/PNAA be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.