Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing orangery and replacement with two storey extension; alterations to existing detached garage.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

37.28        This application was for demolition of existing orangery and replacement with two storey extension and alterations to existing detached garage.

37.29        The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised a large plot which was well screened by mature trees and hedging.  The site was within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The original proposal was for a two storey side extension with a flat roof; however, revised plans had been requested to improve the design and fenestration.  When the revised plans were submitted on 14 November, as well as improving the overall design/fenestration, the extension roof had been changed to a pitched one.  A Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds of overdevelopment, harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and loss of privacy for the immediate neighbours.  Whilst the Parish Council’s concerns had been noted, the plot and dwelling were a substantial size, considered capable of accommodating the proposed works, and would not result in overdevelopment.  In terms of the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the site was very well screened from the road and barely visible when travelling along Stockwell Lane.  With regard to residential amenity, there would be some increased overlooking but, given the distances and existing vegetation, it was considered that it would not result in demonstrable harm to the living conditions of the immediate occupiers.  Overall, the proposal as revised was considered, on balance, to be of a suitable size and design and the impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties would not be adverse.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

37.30        The Chair invited a representative from Woodmancote Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative expressed the view that the changes to the design to maintain the Cotswold vernacular and the distinctiveness of this particular section of the Cotswold escarpment were most welcome.  Notwithstanding this, the Parish Council asked the Committee to refuse planning permission on the basis that the overall scale of the development was excessive and the invasion of privacy needed to be considered in the context of the steep gradient between Hillside Cottage and Edgehill, the fact it was a rural location and whether it was necessary to permit the second storey over the orangery which looked straight into the bedroom of Edgehill given the size of the proposed development and its plot.  If Members were in favour of granting planning permission, the Parish Council asked that two additional conditions be included to require submission of a landscape plan incorporating natural screening between Edgehill and Hillside Cottage, and maintenance thereof in perpetuity, and only permeable hardscaping to minimise any increase in surface water flood risk as advised under the 2018 Supplementary Planning Document; and that the garage was ancillary to the main dwelling and could not be used as separate accommodation.

37.31        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that great care had been taken to improve the existing building design, both internally and externally, and there had been numerous conversations with the Planning department over the past eight months.  During that time, the comments made by the Parish Council and local residents had been taken into account.  Starting in the north-east corner of the site, the garage currently had a 30 degree pitch and the proposal was to increase this to a more vernacular 38 degrees.  In addition, the rendered external façade from the first floor and above would be replaced with Cotswold Stone to improve the farsighted view from the local footpaths.  Moving to the main building, again starting with the north-east corner, the rear courtyard was misplaced on the site and did not gain any sunlight so the proposal would utilise that space. The current layout was a series of superfluous rendered boxes with a first floor terrace to the main bedroom overlooking the valley.  By replacing these boxes, the design intention was to make the space useable for the homeowner.  The side extension referenced the main front elevation with a subordinate elevation taking design cues such as the near central gable and similar proportions of glazing to wall returns; this would also be in Cotswold Stone to match the remainder of the building.  The scheme removed the first floor terrace and moved the viewpoint rearward at the first floor; the first floor window position and shape would focus the eye on the valley view rather than into the garden or bedroom of the adjacent property, improving privacy for both the homeowner and neighbouring residents.  In the opinion of the applicant’s agent, the result was a considered design, proportional but subservient to the existing building whilst improving the farsighted hill aspects and flow and use for the homeowner.

37.32        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed that the recommendation be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the inclusion of an additional condition requiring a landscape plan incorporating natural screening between Edgehill and Hillside Cottage and maintenance in perpetuity, as requested by the Parish Council.  He did not think it was possible to include the second condition being sought by the Parish Council in relation to the use of the garage and asked for a view from Officers on that.  The Development Management Team Leader advised that, whilst it was possible to include the landscape plan condition, there was existing screening in place and it was felt it would be unreasonable to require additional screening over and above that.  A Member pointed out that the site was on a steep part of the hill so, taking into account the gradient, it was possible that any additional landscaping would need to be as high as 40 metres to provide the screening suggested by the Parish Council and there would be no guarantees the leaves would grow in that direction.  On that basis, he agreed with the Development Management Team Leader that it would be unreasonable to ask for additional screening.  In terms of the inclusion of a condition to ensure the garage was ancillary to the main dwelling and could not be used as separate accommodation, the Development Management Team Leader advised that any such change of use would require a further application to the Local Planning Authority so this did not raise any particular concerns for this application.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he was happy to remove the landscape plan condition from his proposal.  The proposal that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation was seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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