Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

21/00277/FUL - Tresco, Langley Road, Winchcombe

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension, first floor extension and dormer windows.




32.2          This application was for erection of a single storey rear extension, first floor extension and dormer windows.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 21 September 2021 for a Planning Committee site visit to assess the proposal in the context of the streetscene and neighbouring properties.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 15 October 2021.

32.3          The Planning Officer advised that the application required a Committee determination as Winchcombe Town Council had objected to the proposal on the basis of the scale of the extensions and the lack of conformity with the requirements of Policy 3.3 of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan relating to bungalow development.  Three letters of representation had been received objecting to the proposal on amenity grounds, one of which related specifically to the revised scheme.  Concerns raised included potential overlooking, overbearing impact and loss of light to the adjacent dwelling to the east.  An additional objection had been received prior to the Planning Committee meeting on 21 September 2021 which was set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  Whilst these concerns had been taken into account, it was not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.  In terms of the Parish Council’s concerns, it was recognised that the proposal would not fulfil the requirements of the bungalow development policy; however, it was the view of Officers that the proposal would be reasonable in the context, considering the scale and location of the development and the orientation of the dwellings in the locale.  In addition, permission had been granted on the site for a one and a half storey replacement dwelling and detached garage in 2020 and the property benefitted from permitted development rights, allowing for extension into the roof space without the need for planning permission – these represented realistic fallback positions.  It was therefore considered that the proposed extensions would be acceptable in the context and would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

32.4          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the application had been deferred at the last meeting for a Planning Committee site visit and he hoped Members would have seen how the extensions would provide a more appropriate living space for the family without adversely impacting on neighbouring amenity or the streetscene.  The application had come to the Committee for determination purely on the basis of the objection from the Town Council that the proposal conflicted with Policy 3.3 of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan in relation to the retention of bungalows.  As the Committee report explained, planning permission had been granted in 2020 for a replacement dwelling at the site and that scheme was for a new property, similar in scale to the one before Members today, which resulted in the loss of all ground floor bedrooms.  The Town Council had raised no objection to the replacement dwelling, nor had it objected to the recent application at Giles Piece, also on Langley Road, which proposed enlarging the roof space to relocate all bedrooms to first floor level and had been granted planning permission in April 2021.  Policy 3.3 of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan did not appear to be applied rigidly or consistently by the Town Council and, with reference to this and other sites, the applicant’s agent could not see why it had objected now.  That aside, the current application retained two bedrooms and bathrooms on the ground floor and so continued to enable the single storey living that Policy 3.3 sought to secure.  The aim of the policy was being met, even though it was not in other applications the Town Council had not opposed.  The Town Council had also raised concerns about the perceived overdevelopment of the site; however, the Committee report carefully assessed the proposal, including the streetscene and neighbouring amenity, and found it to be acceptable in all respects.  Members would have seen a wide variety of property styles on Langley Road including many which had extended upwards and had dormer windows in the roof.  The proposal here showed a good design approach with no adverse effects and the resulting development allowed a local family to stay in their home for the long term, in a way which complied with the local and Neighbourhood Development Plan policy.  The applicant’s agent fully endorsed the Officers’ thorough analysis of the application and asked that Members grant planning permission in line with the recommendation.

32.5          The Chair indicated that 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 permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member noted that the Town Council had objected on the basis that the proposal conflicted with Policy 3.3 of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan and he questioned the strength of the policy given the change in permitted development rights which allowed bungalows to build another storey.  He asked whether Winchcombe Town Council needed to be given advice that the policy was no longer fit for purpose.  The Development Manager felt this was a good question and he advised that changes to national rules could impact local policies and meant that they ceased to have the desired effect.  In this case, permitted development rights meant that the policy could not be applied; however, the policy was clearly important to the local community and it still had a part to play as it could be taken into account in situations where planning permission was required.  A Member indicated that the Democratic Services department had recently circulated an email to all Members giving advice on the review and update of Neighbourhood Development Plans which he felt needed to be promoted to Parish Councils with Neighbourhood Development Plans - particularly those which were, or would soon be, over two years old.

32.6          Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

Supporting documents: