Link to homepage

Agenda item

21/00692/FUL - 10 Yarlington Close, Bishop's Cleeve

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey and two storey rear extension, conversion of existing loft space to include removal of half-hips and creation of rear dormer extension.




38.17        This application was for the erection of a single storey and two storey rear extension, conversion of existing loft space to include removal of half-hips and creation of rear dormer extension.

38.18        The Planning Officer advised that a Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds that the design was out of character with the area, the proposal was too large and overbearing and would have a harmful impact on neighbouring dwellings.  Whilst the Parish Council’s concerns had been noted, the two storey rear extension would only project out by 3.6 metres and the first floor aspect would only be 3.6 metres in width.  The rear dormer as revised had been reduced in size and would be set well down from the ridge line.  The dwelling had not been previously extended apart from a rear conservatory which would be removed as part of the proposal.  In relation to the impact on the neighbours, overlooking would not be harmful given that the window to window distance with the nearest neighbours at the rear would be approximately 23 metres.  It was recognised there would be some loss of light and outlook to the nearest dwellings to the west; however, taking into account that the application had been revised and would be further from the boundary, along with the orientation of the sun, it was not considered to be harmful and would not warrant refusal of planning permission.  Overall, the revised proposal was considered to be of a suitable size and design and there would be no adverse impact on the neighbouring properties, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

38.19        The Chair indicated that the Development Management Team Leader (South) would read out a statement from the applicant who had been unable to attend the meeting due to extenuating personal circumstances.  The Development Management Team Leader (South) doing so stated that the applicant had submitted plans to build a single storey and two storey extension at the back of his house and to convert current loft space into a dormer overlooking the back garden.  The application was very important to them as it would provide a family with young children with the space and amenities they would need as they grew up.  As part of the process, the proposals had been scrutinised by the Parish Council’s Planning Committee where they had been supported; however, the plans did not win universal support and a very small number of residents had registered their objections.  The concerns had been taken very seriously and the applicant had asked to meet with the planning authorities to understand the type and nature of the changes that could be made to ensure the proposals conformed with planning regulations.  The applicant had held open house meetings with the neighbours, as well as Parish Councillors and Borough Council Officers, where the proposed changes had been discussed and they had listened to the views expressed by others.  The changes included the removal of windows on the ground and first floors and a reduction to the size of other windows, the proposed dormer size and the overall two storey extension itself.  It was hoped that by listening and responding – making considerable compromises to address any concerns – that the application would receive a fair and objective hearing.  Revised plans had been submitted to the Borough Council on that basis triggering a further review by the Parish Council which subsequently decided not to support the application with one Councillor voting on the basis that he had “never liked three storey houses”.  The applicant considered the lack of Parish Council support for the revised plans to be bizarre given that the Agenda for the Parish Council meeting on 14 October 2021 stated “Committee supported original larger application and objected to revised reduced scale application”.  The applicant therefore asked that Members examine the application with the kind of independent objectivity they would apply to any application before them and, on this occasion, they had the benefit of the advice of the professional Planning Officers who had scrutinised the proposals and had provided their own recommendation.  The applicant respectfully requested that Members support the Officer recommendation to permit the application.

38.20        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.  The proposer of the motion was disappointed that the Parish Council had not sent a representative to address the Committee given its objection to the proposal.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

Supporting documents: