Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

GD introduced the application, he advised that the applicant was seeking permission to demolish the existing attached garage and build a two storey side extension, a single storey rear extension, remodelling and general modernisation works to a two storey link detached dwelling.

Miss Plouffe, neighbour in objection

Speaking on behalf of the residents of Hartley Close who were objecting to the application. She noted that only 4 notices had been sent to residents of Hartley Close concerning the proposal and a number of residents who would be visually impacted  by the development were not formally invited to contribute their reviews.

The main reason for her objection was the fact that the application was in direct contravention to Core Policy 7 (Design) which requires development to be of a high standard of architectural design and to complement and respect neighbouring development. She noted that the council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Alterations and Extensions (2008) emphasised the importance of achieving subservience, and that an extension should not dominate or detract from the original from the original building but play a supporting role. She felt that the side and rear alterations proposed were substantial and the size and height of the proposed two storey side extension which comes forward from the principal house would dominate the property, create an elongated effect and be out of character to neighbouring properties. Plans to fully render the home would also create an overbearing property out of place on the street.

She highlighted that the planning officer report stated that in the NPPF design should not be used as a valid reason to object neighbourhood development. However, noted that the same policy states that design should be developed with local communities,  and therefore requested that the design elements of the proposal and impact should be considered.

She felt that the proposal did not respect the local context and street pattern of Hartley Close, and in particular, the scale and proportions of the surrounding properties. It would create an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the street. She also had concerns about the impact on the sense of ‘openness’ for the street and the precedent this could set for future development.

She noted that the parish council did not submit an objection, however reasoned that this decision was taken without soliciting views from residents.

Whilst she fully respected the desires of the owners or modernise and alter the current property, she felt that this could be accomplished in a different way, minimising the unacceptable impact for others residing on the street.

Miss Davies, agent in support

She highlighted that, as per the officer’s report, the extensions were not of a scale that would result in an overdevelopment of the site and that the proposed scheme represents a high quality design. She further acknowledged that the proposals were in accordance with the relevant local plan policies and guidance contained with the NPPF.

She noted that the objections largely related to the scale of the proposed extensions and potential loss of openness to the street-scene, the design approach and the potential loss of car parking. She wished to draw Members attention to the letter sent to them on 16^th December which addressed those matter in great detail.  She further noted that a number of other properties within close proximity had been extended and modernised.

She stressed that the property  was not listed, not located within a Conservation Area or the AONB and was located more than 25 metres from objecting residents. Similarly, the houses in Hartley Close were predominantly wide fronted with many occupying the widths of their plots. She acknowledged that the proposed side extension would reduce the space between the neighbouring property to the west at the first floor level but a visual gap of 5 meters would be retained. The proposed extension would also bring the side elevation and porch slightly forwards of the existing frontage to allow for a front apex and porch which would replicate the existing local architectural features and would harmonise with the existing dwelling. Overall, it was not considered the proposed design would reduce the perception of openness within the street scene.

She highlighted that the design would reflect the many gable end buildings in Hartley Close  and as a number of properties within the locality had undertaken similar works it was considered that the visual amenity and character of the area would not be unduly affected by the proposals. Similarly, the proposed materials were not at odds with the prevailing nature of Hartley Close. 

Following concerns regarding parking, she confirmed that the property would still benefit from a driveway and garage, capable of accommodating three parked cars.

Member Debate

PB: Confirmed that whilst he had had a number of residents contact him about the site, he had not engaged with residents about the application itself. He noted that Hartley Close was an attractive street with high quality accommodation that offered a fantastic backdrop to the AONB. A number of residents in the nearby area had modified their properties in order too suit their requirements. He stressed the importance of good design although acknowledged that this was extremely subjective. He noted that there was a mix of housing in Hartley Close and felt that this application would make a high quality family home.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 For

0 Against

1 Abstention

PERMIT