Link to homepage

Agenda item

20/00847/FUL - 1 Wood Stanway Drive, Bishops Cleeve

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear and side extensions.




40.40        The application was for the erection of single storey rear and side extensions.

40.41        The Planning Officer advised that this was a householder application for 1 Wood Stanway Drive. It was a detached property located on an estate in Bishops Cleeve. The proposal was to add a single storey rear extension and single storey potting shed structure on the side of the property, to connect the house and garage. A Committee determination was required as Bishops Cleeve Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds of the choice of materials being out of keeping with the area. The Parish Council’s concerns had been considered, however it was the view of Officers that, whilst the materials proposed would be unusual in the context of the property on an estate road, the harm this would cause would be outweighed by the fact that the extensions would lie in the rear garden and would therefore not have an impact on the appearance or character of the street. It was considered that the proposal would not be harmful to the existing dwelling and would not result in an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings or the character of the area, due to its size and position. It was therefore recommended that the application be permitted. Members would note, from the additional representations sheet, that the recommendation had changed from ‘permit’ to a ‘delegated permit’. This was because it was felt necessary to put up another site notice on the road to the rear of the application site. As the site notice was put up at a relatively late stage, the date for responses did not expire until 26 November 2020 which was after the date of Planning Committee. The recommendation for a delegated permit allowed for that additional time.

40.42        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and that the Officer recommendation was for a delegated permit. A Member sought clarification in respect of the delegated permit recommendation that had arisen from the need to display a Notice in Green Meadow Bank which was to the rear of the property; he questioned what would happen if the residents put in an objection resulting in the need for a Committee decision how could the recommendation then change. The Development Manager indicated that in the situation that an additional representation was made which fundamentally affected the Member decision and was a substantive planning issue that required further consideration, it would be brought back to the next available Committee. The delegation would only be exercised where there were no additional substantive planning reasons for an objection and that would be for the Development Manager to make a judgement on and, if necessary, the application would be brought back to Committee. The Officer recommendation of delegated permit was proposed and seconded. A Member questioned whether it was black wood that was being used on this extension and expressed the view that if it was she was in support of the views of Bishops Cleeve Parish Council that the materials were out of keeping with the area. The Planning Officer confirmed that it was black wood. Another Member questioned whether this was premature whilst comments on the application were still subject to consultation and asked whether there was any reason why the application could not be considered at the next Planning Committee when Members could be advised of the outcome of the consultation after it had closed. The Development Manager stated that, if Members were uncomfortable with the delegated permit, the option was open to defer the application but in terms of making the best time of Committee business and expediting the decision, particularly if no further objections were received, was it reasonable to delay the application further. In his view it would be unreasonable but indicated that it was a matter for the Committee to decide upon. The proposer of the motion indicated that he was perfectly satisfied with the advice from the Development Manager that the matter would come back to the Planning Committee if substantive planning objections were raised and therefore he could see no reason to delay the application.

40.43        Accordingly, the motion was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED          That permission be DELEGATED to the Development Manager in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

Supporting documents: