Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of first floor rear extension and installation of a rear roof dormer.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

7.33          This application was for erection of a first floor rear extension and installation of a rear roof dormer.

7.34          The Planning Assistant advised that this was a householder application in respect of a detached dwelling located in the village of Alderton.  A Committee determination was required as Alderton Parish Council had objected to the application on the grounds that the proposal would be of an inappropriate and poor design, out of character with the village vernacular, overbearing on the neighbouring dwellings and would result in insufficient parking.  No objections had been received from the statutory consultees but there had been eight letters of representation following neighbour consultation, all objecting to the application.  It was the Officer view that the proposal would not result in any undue harm to the streetscene or the occupants of the neighbouring dwellings, therefore, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

7.35          The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident explained that this was one of many building plans that had been submitted for the site since 2019 and, after much consultation, the developer had agreed to a single storey at the rear to preserve the neighbour’s amenity.  With regard to overshadowing, the original plans did not show how close the property was to No. 9A Beckford Road, nor did it show the conservatory at No. 11 Beckford Road; although a site visit had been requested to assess the impact of the second and third storey extension on the conservatory, that was yet to take place.  The Committee report stated that the proposal consisted of a two storey extension that would be constructed over the existing single storey rear area of the dwelling.  The proposed extension would have a part catslide roof which would accommodate the box dormer extension.  The second floor extension would be constructed from coursed stone to match the existing building and the box dormer would be clad in standing seam metal cladding.  The design of the extension was utilitarian in appearance and, due to the limited space on the existing roof slope, would create an awkward relationship between the box dormer and the roof of the proposed second floor extension.  Whilst this relationship was not ideal in design terms, the extension would be viewed from a limited number of public vantage points, the majority of which being within private residential gardens and dwellings.  The local resident indicated that the surrounding neighbours would have to look at it every day so it would affect them all.  She pointed out that the Conservation Officer’s report stated that the design would create a dominant and unsympathetic addition to the property and surrounding area.  In conclusion, the local resident asked the Planning Committee to visit the site and assess the overbearing and overshadowing impact on the surrounding properties prior to making a decision.

7.36          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the application related to a recently built property within the main built-up area of Alderton and proposed relatively modest extensions to the house.  It involved a small first floor extension above an existing single storey element and a dormer window in the roof to maximise use.  As Members would be aware, planning applications were to be determined in accordance with the expectations and thresholds set out in local and national policies.  Officers had identified what the key policies were i.e. the householder extension policies of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, and, using their knowledge and experience of determining similar applications within the borough, they had set out clearly in the Committee report the threshold for what was acceptable in terms of design and the impact on neighbouring amenity.   In that regard, the applicant’s agent felt that Officers were correct in concluding that the proposed extension ultimately met the design and neighbouring amenity expectations of policy; accordingly it was recommended that planning permission be granted.  In particular, Officers had identified that the proposed extensions would not breach the 45 degree rule which was often used to assess the impact on neighbouring outlook and amenity.  Furthermore, at over 25 metres from the dormers and 22 metres from the new rear extension, the extensions exceeded the minimum back-to-back and window-to-window distances between properties.  Officers also confirmed that the Council’s Conservation Officer had no overarching objections to the scheme.  In that regard, the Conservation Officer represented the main party tasked with assessing design quality within Tewkesbury Borough.  Officers had rightly concluded that the proposal reasonably accorded with adopted Policies RES10, SD4 and SD14.  The applicant’s agent noted that some concerns had been expressed by the Parish Council and local residents and, whilst they were entitled to their views, they could not reasonably lead to the refusal of planning permission.  Members would be aware that the concern expressed by local residents that extensions would set a precedent for other properties to extend, and the impact on land values, were not material planning considerations.  Furthermore, policy was met with regard to parking standards, with County Highways’ requirements adhered to in all respects.  In conclusion, Officers were correctly supporting the application and he hoped Members would take their advice and permit the application.

7.37          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member questioned how the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan impacted the application and was informed that the proposal had been assessed against the plan and there was no conflict.  Another Member asked why a site visit had not taken place if it had been requested and the Development Management Team Manager (East) explained there had been no site visit request via Members, the site visit request referenced by the local resident had been made by a member of the public.  A Member asked for a comment on the size of the dormer roof and the Planning Assistant advised that the dormer was set down from the side of the dwelling itself and could be achieved under permitted development rights which allowed a dormer up to 50 cubic metres on a detached dwelling – the proposed dormer was 26 cubic metres so was considered to be an appropriate size.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) explained that, whilst Members had a right to refuse the application, the property benefited from permitted development rights and, if this application was unsuccessful, a certificate of lawfulness application could be submitted.  A Member asked whether it was possible to defer the application for a Planning Committee Site Visit and the Development Management Team Manager (East) confirmed it was within Members’ gift to do so if they felt they could not determine the application based on the photographs displayed at the meeting.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity and the visual impact on the streetscene.  A Member indicated that she supported a deferral on that basis and found it disappointing that, although it was stated that the Conservation Officer had no objections, an issue had been raised in relation to design and that should have been included in the Committee report.  Alderton Parish Council had objected on design grounds and this seemed to be backed up by the Conservation Officer.

7.38          Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be DEFERRED for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity and the visual impact on the steetscene.