Agenda item

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

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

13.14        This application was for erection of a first floor rear extension and installation of a rear roof dormer.  The application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 25 May 2023 for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity and the visual impact on the streetscene.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 16 June 2023.

13.15        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 keeping 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.  As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, two further letters of representation had been received since publication of the Committee report which also objected 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.

13.16        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that the application related to a recently built property within the main built-up area of the village of Alderton.  It involved a small first floor extension above an existing single storey element and a dormer window in the roof space to maximise use of that space – the property as built had proved too small in terms of bedroom space which had hindered its sale viability.  As Members would be aware, planning applications must be determined in accordance with the expectations and thresholds set out in local and national policies. In this case, Officers had identified the key policies, those being the householder extension policies of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, and using their knowledge and experience of determining similar applications within the Borough, had set out clearly in the Committee report the threshold for what was acceptable from a design and amenity point of view.  The applicant’s agent believed Officers were right in concluding that the proposed extension met those design and amenity policy expectations and, in the interests of consistency, had accordingly recommended that planning permission be granted.  In particular, Officers had identified that the proposed extensions would not breach the 45 degree code which was often used to assess the impact on neighbouring outlook and amenity; furthermore, at a distance of over 25 metres from the dormers and 22 metres from the new rear extension, the extensions exceeded the minimum back-to-back, window-to-window distances between properties.  The Committee report also confirmed that the Council’s Conservation Officer – who represented the main party tasked with assessing design quality in Tewkesbury Borough - had no overarching objections to the scheme.  The applicant’s agent noted there were concerns from the Parish Council and local residents and whilst clearly they were entitled to their views, which they had duly expressed, the concerns raised could not reasonably lead to the refusal of planning permission in this instance.  Members would be aware that the concern expressed by locals that these extensions would set a precedent for other properties to extend and would affect land values, were not material considerations.  The concern over the level of parking was also unfounded on the basis that Gloucestershire County Council’s parking standards supported two parking spaces for properties of this size, meaning the standard was met.  The applicant’s agent hoped that Members would take Officer advice and permit the application today.

13.17        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted from the Additional Representations Sheet that two further letters of representation had been received the second of which stated that, as referenced in the agent’s planning statement, the original planning permission restricted how far the first floor bedrooms at the rear of the property could extend in order to maintain the amenity and privacy of neighbouring properties and went on to say that permitting this new application would mean that decision had been reversed - she asked for confirmation on whether that was the case.  In response, the Planning Assistant advised this was not negotiated as part of this scheme; the application had been assessed against the same policies and it was considered there would be no undue harm.  Another Member asked whether the proposal complied with the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan in terms of design and visual amenity and was informed that it complied in terms of matching materials and cladding was the most appropriate material to facilitate the design.  The Member questioned whether cladding complied with the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan design and visual amenity clauses and was advised that, in this instance, it was not deemed inappropriate.  The Member did not feel his question had been adequately answered and felt it would be helpful if Committee reports could outline whether the proposal complied with the relevant Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The Legal Adviser explained that Policy LC1 of the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan related to promoting local distinctiveness in built form and included setting out that proposals should seek to reflect the distinctive character of Alderton Parish with materials such as stone, reconstituted stone, painted brick or render being integrated into the design of new dwellings in a proportionate and appropriate way to complement adjacent or nearby buildings.  It also included that innovations and contemporary designs may be considered acceptable if scale and materials were appropriate to the site and its setting so there was a judgement issue to be made in terms of whether local distinctiveness was being incorporated in a modern way and Officers had concluded that this proposal fitted the streetscene.  A Member expressed the view that nothing had changed in terms of the streetscene, particularly in terms of the size and design of the dormer, and he asked whether any alternative proposal could be put forward which might be considered more acceptable.  In response, the Planning Assistant confirmed there would be no change to the principal elevation as the proposal was for a first floor rear extension and rear dormer.  He explained that the proposed dormer was 26 cubic metres but under permitted development rights could be up to 50 cubic metres; the proposed rear extension could not be constructed under permitted development rights.

13.18        It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the basis that, due to its scale and form, it would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and was out of keeping with existing dwellings in the area in conflict with Policies H1 and LC1 of the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan, Policy RES10 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Policy SD14 of the Joint Core Strategy.  The proposer of the motion felt this demonstrated why site visits were invaluable as everyone had been able to see the impact on neighbouring properties.  The seconder of the motion noted that the original application was for two properties.  Officers had attempted to address the concerns and objections raised by neighbouring occupants with amendments made to simplify and reduce the size of the roof and the scale of the overall building by reducing the first floor element.  He did not believe the proposal complied with the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan as it did not meet the requirement of Policy H1 in terms of development being consistent with the scale, proportion and density of existing houses, or Policy LC1 which stated that residential development should be of a density appropriate to, and in keeping with, the immediate surrounding area.  The proposal also failed to meet the criteria of Policy RES10 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan as it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and did not respect the character of surrounding development.  Furthermore, it did not comply with Policy SD14 of the Joint Core Strategy due to the unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and therefore should be refused.  The Planning Assistant recognised the concerns and indicated that he had discussed these with the Planning Officer responsible for the previous application.  In terms of the bulk and mass of the roof there were no other examples in the local vicinity; however, each application must be assessed on its own merits.  The proposer of the motion indicated there were negotiations at the time of the original application to ensure there was no impact on surrounding neighbours, which was the reason for the single storey at the back to reduce the mass of the building, but now that was being extended up to roof height and the roof was also being extended which, in her opinion, would have a detrimental impact and conflicted with the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan and the Council’s own policies.  The seconder of the motion asked what could be carried out under permitted development rights should the application be refused and was informed that the first floor extension could not be built without planning permission but the dormer could be extended to take up the majority of the rear roof.

13.19        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be REFUSED as, due to its scale and form, it would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and was out of keeping with existing dwellings in the area in conflict with Policies H1 and LC1 of the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan, Policy RES10 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Policy SD14 of the Joint Core Strategy.