Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were two public speakers on the item: the applicant, and the ward member.

The applicant addressed the committee and made the following points:

• My wife and I want to improve our house, which had been empty for a considerable time before we bought it. Our plans will modernise the property and improve living conditions.
• The property has suffered condensation and damp, opening up and increasing the roof space will improve this issue.
• It is very popular to convert roof spaces in bungalows to increase room space but in order to do this for our property we need to increase the roof height. This is a modest increase rather than a full 2 storey extension.
• We are not increasing footprint and have been mindful of our neighbours’ privacy, opting not to put windows at the back of the extension. Instead, we have chosen roof lights placed at a distance as not to cause unacceptable loss of privacy.
• We will also be improving the landscape outside.
• Overall, we want to update the property and bring it in line with modern living standards to make it a suitable family-size home for now and the future. We have worked with the architect and local planning officer, who has considered our plans and recommended them for approval.

Councillor Harvey, as Ward Member, addressed the committee and made the following points:

• This is the second application tonight that has taken no regard to the Climate Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This was introduced 3 years ago and at the heart of our planning process successful applicants should have taken the SPD into account. I’m disappointed that this has not been taken into account in officers’ recommendations tonight.
• I wasn’t allowed to circulate my reasons for refusal on legal advice.
• Residents have asked me to comment not because of intrusion by windows, loss of view, or loss of privacy. Their concern is that the mass being increased to the south of them will cast a shadow across neighbouring gardens. They will lose sunlight and the amenity of sitting in their garden to enjoy the sunshine.
• I understand why the property owners wish to make these changes, but I equally understand why other local residents are concerned. The proposal will overshadow their properties and be overbearing.

The Head of Planning clarified that the SPD does set out a number of approaches, including actions for reducing carbon emissions and introduction of renewable energy. However, it encourages those measures but does not demand them. It has the full weight of a supplementary planning document, but it does not set out any categoric fixed policies that must be complied with. It is a guidance document that encourages developers to follow this approach. As a planning authority we are not in a position to insist that certain measures are put in place.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

• There was no parish council objection.
• The roof of the property to the south of the applicant is significantly higher than the current proposal but the exact measurements are not currently available.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

• Normally solar PV would be a desirable inclusion but for this type of development the financial benefits would be very slim, making it an unreasonable expectation.
• The additional roof height does not seem significant and as the property is set back significantly from the road it would not be visible so could not be considered out of character for the area.
• No major planning reasons were identified for rejection.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit:

For: 10

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY to permit.