PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey side and rear extension (revised scheme).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

10.36        This application was for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension – revised scheme.

10.37         The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was for a single storey side and rear extension at 1 Juniper Close, Innsworth.  This was a revised application to the 2019 permission with the difference being that the rear extension would now have a lean-to roof as opposed to a flat roof.  A Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds that the extension would be overdevelopment.  Whilst these concerns had been noted, it was not considered that the proposal would result in overdevelopment given that the dwelling had not been previously extended and there would be a sufficient amount of garden space left.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the floor area of the proposal would be the same as the 2019 permission.  Overall, it was considered to be of an acceptable size and design and would be in-keeping with the character of the area, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

10.38        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the basis that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the surrounding area and an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to the neighbouring dwellings.  The Technical Planning Manager understood the concerns raised but drew attention to the plans at Pages No. 91 and 92 of the Officer report which enabled Members to make a comparison of what had been permitted and what was being proposed.  The only difference was the pitched roof along the rear elevation and Members were asked to consider whether that would have a significant harmful impact over and above what had already been permitted.  The Chair expressed the view that replacing the flat roof would result in uncomfortable junctions between the apex of the roof and the three windows on the rear elevation and he queried whether Officers were satisfied this would comply with any design principles in the area.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager confirmed that, whilst it was slightly awkward, it was not considered to be so unacceptable as to warrant a refusal.  A Member raised concern that Members were making a decision based on the design plans alone and he was of the opinion that it would be beneficial to have a virtual Planning Committee site visit to properly assess the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  He felt it was important to see the site and appreciate the physical context and he welcomed views from others in this regard.  The Chair felt that the plans provided within the Officer report were sufficient to understand what was being proposed and the arguments being made by the Technical Planning Manager.  Members needed to be able to make a judgement as to whether the proposal was sufficiently different from that which had been permitted to warrant a refusal and, from his point of view, he was unsure that a virtual site visit would assist with that.  The proposer and seconder of the motion to refuse indicated the withdrawal of that motion and subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for a virtual Planning Committee site visit so that Members could see the site in context.  Upon being put to the vote, the motion to defer the application was lost.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.