Agenda item - 22/03245/FPH 5 HIGH STREET, PIRTON, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG5 3PS

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Single storey rear extension following demolition of existing outbuilding, insertion of windows to the principal and rear roof slopes of dwelling.

RESOLVED: That application 22/03245/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with the following additional conditions:

“Condition 4:

No development shall commence until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the construction of the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall detail:

(1) Construction vehicle numbers.

(2) Access arrangements to the site for the delivery of materials and equipment.

(3) Details of the storage of materials on-site.

(4) Timing of construction activities (including delivery times and removal of waste) and the hours of construction.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and residential amenity”.

“Condition 5:

All paving hereby approved and constructed on site shall be permeable unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of ensuring that suitable drainage is provided”.

Audio recording – 24 minutes 33 seconds

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that there were no updates or changes since the report, but some extra labels had been added to the plan of the roof slope.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 22/03245/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

In response to a question from Councillor Louise Peace, the Planning Officer advised, that the party wall was a civil matter and did not pertain to the application.

The Chair invited Pirton Parish Councillor Diane Burleigh to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Burleigh thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

· The Parish Council would not have objected to a more modest version of the application but felt this extension was too large and dominant in what was a small and cramped space.

· The property was part of three terraced cottages from the late 19^th Century which have a 13.5-foot-wide narrow garden.

· The property was listed as a property of interest in the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan.

· Under section 8 and 3 of the Neighbourhood Plan the extension would not meet the guidelines and would not enhance the Conservation Area.

· The extension was taller that the current outbuilding, and at over 12 feet wide the extension would provide very little room between the boundaries.

· The current house had a footprint of 40 square meters or 46 if the outbuilding was included. The extension would increase the footprint to 69.

· The extension was not sympathetic to the neighbouring properties, from No 7 there would be 20 inches of path and then a 10-foot wall which would block out light.

· The front roof lights are not in keeping with the Conservation Area.

· The applicant had offered blinds to prevent light pollution but there is no guarantee that would continue with future occupants.

The following Members asked point of clarification:

· Councillor Sean Nolan

· Councillor Daniel Allen

In response to the points of clarification Parish Councillor advised:

· The property was listed in Pirton Neighbourhood Plan as a building of local interest, it is a non-listed important building of local interest.

· The floor plan was 40 square meters, but with the outbuilding it is 46 square meters, the new plan was a 75% increase on existing area.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Burleigh for her presentation and invited Councillor Claire Strong to speak against the application. Councillor Strong thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

· She supported the objections of the Parish Councils to this application.

· The extension covered a larger footprint than the existing outbuilding, most of the extension is on the other side of the outbuilding and covered a large area of the garden, bordering No 7.

· The application was in a Conservation Area, but there was no published report from the Conservation Officer.

· The report suggested the extension complied to point 3.1 of the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan, but the scale of the extension was not subservient to the property.

· The height of the roof and the roof lights were not in keeping with the host building and the terrace row of houses.

· The 10-foot extension wall offered no safeguarding for No 7 against access, noise, privacy, outlook and daylight, and questioned if any measurements had been taken.

· Under the Local Plan, regarding the layout and function of the extension, the application should be refused.

· A condition for blinds to be installed on the roof lights was needed to prevent light pollution.

· If approved, work needed be in line with working hours, so it would not affect any neighbours.

· New paving installed should be required to be permeable.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Councillor Strong for her presentation and invited Charlotte Fausset to speak in support of the application. Ms Fausset thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

· The family have been in the village for 42 years and included a teacher at the local school.

· The property was a 2 bedroom cottage with an outbuilding that did not meet building regulations and, the property had a 25 meter long garden.

· There was a lack of feasible, affordable accommodation in Pirton.

· The extension was planned considering the rear access, drainage, the orientation of the sun, long garden and mindful of the listed building.

· After a neighbourhood plan survey in 2015 it was concluded that the most important need for housing in Pirton was for the elderly and local people, which was how the Local Plan evolved.

· Ms Fausset felt the Parish Council was acting unfairly and going against their principles in the Local Plan, which had help for the elderly and young families at its core.

· The new housing stock in Pirton had very few affordable 2 and 3 bedroomed properties and the interest rates rises the Applicants had chosen to extend rather than buy elsewhere.

· The owner of No 7 had been consulted and the owner stated that they understood and supported the reasons for the extension.

· The two ground floor windows at No 7 which, overlooked the extension were for the bath and utilities rooms.

· All works would take place on the site of No 5 and the fence to No7 would not be disturbed.

The following Members asked points of clarification

· Councillor Simon Bloxham

· Councillor Tom Tyson

· Councillor Daniel Allen

· Councillor Michael Muir

In response to the points of clarification Mrs Fausset advised that:

· The windows at No 7 facing the boundary fence were a utility room and a ground floor bathroom.

· The current outbuilding extension was 1.9 meters tall and with the rafters it was 2.5 meters tall.

The Chair thanked Ms Fausset for her presentation.

In response to the points of clarification raised during the public presentation the Planning Officer advised that:

· Following consultation with the Conservation Officer, the number of roof lights were reduced from 5 to 3 but this was not a formal recommendation.

· A proposed condition requiring the installation of blinds would not be enforceable.

· Light impact was considered, and they have advised that a light coloured render should be applied.

· The 50% increase referred to, regarding the new total area, related to the original floor plan, without the outside storage space included, as the extension was to replace the existing outside storage it was therefore relevant to consider.

· There would be 1.1 meters between the building of No 7 and the new side elevation extension.

· Comments identified as ‘Neutral’ had been received from the resident at No 7.

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed the application to be approved with the following additional conditions, that the use permeable paving be required and that a Construction Management Plan be submitted and approved. This was seconded by Councillor Michael Muir and, following a vote, it was: