Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Two storey side extension, single storey rear extension, demolition of existing garage and front porch extension, with ancillary works.

RESOLVED: That application 19/01379/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording – 22 minutes 11 seconds

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 19/01379/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that Paragraph 3.3.3 of the report should be amended to read:

“It is necessary to be mindful of the fall back position of what could be built as ‘permitted development’.  The proposed single storey element of the development would be approximately 3.28m in depth and 4.2m high where it meets the house and 3.5m at its lowest point .  A single storey rear extension 3m in depth and 4m in height where it meets the house and 3m at its lowest point could be built without planning permission (to the rear of the existing house).” 

The following Members asked questions:

·                Councillor Ruth Brown;

·                Councillor Terry Tyler.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that there were no dimensions regarding the garage given in the report. However, the garage width was adequate and it was 5.6 metres deep.

Mr Norton Mahy, Ashwell Parish Council, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 19/01379/FPH as follows:

·                There would be an impact on parking;

·                Many residents used the footpath including older people and young families. They would be affected if the footpath were to be closed;

·                He asked for conditions to be added in order to:

·                prevent the footpath from being closed during construction work;

·                change the use of the garage.

Councillor Tom Tyson who had called the application in, was unable to attend but had provided the Committee with a written statement in objection to application 19/01378/FPH which was read out by the Principal Planning Officer as follows:

·                The rear extension would have a deleterious impact on the neighbours at No 78;

·                The height of the eaves exceeded the threshold of permitted development;

·                The floor level of the proposed extension was above ground level; and

·                The extension would dominate the neighbour’s view at No 78.

Mr Clive Self, CSA Environmental Planning, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 19/01379/FPH as follows:

·                The development made efficient use of land;

·                The application was compatible with the prevailing character of the area;

·                There were no material impacts on the character of the area or amenity of residents;

·                The terrace was a 1.8 metre high screen which prevented any direct views into the rear garden of the neighbouring property;

·                Neighbours had not objected to the development;

·                The application provided 2 parking spaces, one of which was the garage; and

·                There would be no impact on the public footpath.

The following Member asked questions:

·                Councillor Daniel Allen.

In response to questions, Mr Self advised that:

·                The client would not have a problem with a condition being added that ensured the garage was used for parking.

In response to points raised, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

·                Condition 3 was in place to ensure that the public right of way was not affected by the proposed works; and

·                The Council were not able to enforce garage use as parking only.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·                Councillor David Levett; and

·                Councillor Michael Muir.

Points raised in the debate were as follows:

·                Neighbours had not objected to the application; and

·                The loss of sunlight.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

·                A daylight/sunlight test would not be carried out on a single storey extension.

It was proposed by Councillor David Levett and seconded by Councillor Michael Muir, that application 19/01379/FPH be granted planning permission.

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 19/01379/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.