PROPOSAL: Reconfiguration and extension of existing dwelling.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

20.2          This application was for the reconfiguration and extension of the existing dwelling.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 July 2023.

20.3          The Planning Officer advised that the application related to Appledore, a large detached replacement dwelling located along Corndean Lane in Winchcombe.  The site fell within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and near to the Cotswold Way which ran along Corndean Lane to the east.  Revised plans had been submitted in February reducing the overall size and bulk of the extensions, particularly on the north and south elevations, and omitting the proposed basement.  It was noted there would be an overall increase in volume of 32% which was much less than the original scheme submitted.  A Committee determination was required as the Town Council had objected to the revised plans due to concerns regarding the scale and design of the proposal and as it was considered that, once extended, the dwelling would stand out when viewed from the Cotswold Way.  Whilst the proposal as revised would still substantially increase the size of the dwelling, it would result in improvements to the design and appearance of the building.  In relation to the impact on the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Cotswold Way, the Landscape Officer considered that the revised proposal would have a minimal additional impact on the existing setting.  The main public views of the building would be from the Public Right of Way to the south and would mostly be distant and seen as part of a much wider landscape, glimpsed for only a short distance within the setting of the other dwellings.  With regard to the impact on neighbouring dwellings a full assessment had been made and, given the size of the plot and the distance between the immediate dwellings, there would not be any harmful overlooking or loss of light.  The Drainage Officer had confirmed he was happy with the proposed drainage condition and that it would suitably cover the drainage requirements.  Overall, it was considered that the proposal as revised would not be unduly harmful to the appearance of the existing dwelling, nor the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and it would not result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to neighbouring dwellings, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit.

20.4          The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the proposal to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that the Council’s invitation to comment suggested two particular criteria: unsympathetic design affecting the appearance of the building and/or the character of the street; and environmental matters such as impact on landscape and character of an area.  The Council declared a planning policy that aimed to prevent new development that was of unsympathetic design or which had a disruptive impact on the landscape and local character – local residents were asking only that the application be decided in accordance with these policy criteria.  In terms of scale, the house already dwarfed its neighbours, and this proposal would enlarge its bulk even further, by about one-third, which would both exacerbate its incongruity with all its neighbours and increase its stark visual prominence.  With regard to its design and place in the landscape, Appledore’s modernist ‘boxy’ style made it a misfit among its neighbours, an anomaly made extra conspicuous by its great bulk.  This proposal would soften the south side’s verticals but would also increase the length, breath, height and bulk of its mass, making it look more like a block of flats or offices which would further disrupt both the character of the area and views from the Cotswold Way Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  It was already an intrusive and alien feature and to substantially enlarge it would make it even more conspicuous.  In terms of frontage to the lane, the local resident indicated that, like its neighbours, Appledore’s north front was now reasonably well set back from the lane, but this proposal would bring the frontage forward and lengthen it by some 20% to around 90 feet long.  These encroachments would make the lane feel far more overlooked and enclosed, imposing a suburban feel to what now felt rural.  Appledore already violated the set limit in terms of overall height and to permit a further increase would encourage the disregard already demonstrated which should be resisted.  On that basis, he felt that planning permission should be refused.

20.5          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted there were trees screening the view from the hill and she asked if these were part of the application site or in another field and whether there would be provisions for screening if the trees were removed at any point.  In response, the Planning Officer advised that she believed the majority of the trees providing screening were in a separate field and not part of the existing application.  She confirmed that no substantial trees were being removed from the garden so the proposed landscaping would be additional to the existing.  A Member noted that the Cotswold Way started to descend from this point which meant that Appledore came into greater view and, whilst it was a distance away, it would become more prominent to anyone walking along the Cotswold Way.  The Planning Officer agreed that the building would get closer as walkers descended the hill; however, it was not an isolated dwelling and would be read in conjunction with the existing neighbouring dwellings.  She reiterated that the Landscape Officer had been consulted on the application and concluded that, whilst there would be minimal additional impact, it would not be harmful enough to warrant refusal.  The Development Management Manager advised that the Landscape Officer’s comments were reflected at Page No. 30, Paragraph 8.3 of the Committee report which stated there would be a minor or negligible additional impact on the existing setting and confirmed that the main public views of the building would be from the Public Rights of Way to the south and would mostly be distant as part of a wider landscape panorama, glimpsed only for a short distance and screened by intervening vegetation.  A Member queried whether the pool house was still part of the proposal and, if so, where it would be and the Planning Officer confirmed that the pool house and outdoor swimming pool were included and pointed out their location on the photograph displayed at the meeting.

20.6          It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused due to its bulk and size which would have an overbearing impact on the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Cotswold Way which conflicted with Policies SD6 and SD7 of the Joint Core Strategy and 1.1., 5.1 and 5.5 of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The proposer of the motion indicated that it was one of the nicest views of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would be spoilt by the proposal, particularly in autumn and winter when the foliage had gone.  A Member sympathised with the local residents and the proposer and seconder of the motion but indicated that, if the application was to be refused, it was necessary to have sound planning reasons which he did not believe had been provided.  Another Member questioned if it was possible to strengthen proposed condition 4 to require further screening to protect the view, particularly as this seemed to be reliant on vegetation which was not within the application site.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that, in terms of the landscape impact, the Council’s Landscape Officer had assessed the proposal and found that the additional harm would be minor.  If the application was permitted, the proposed landscaping condition would require details for the whole site to be submitted so additional screening could be considered at that point; however, it was important to consider what was reasonable and whether it could be kept in perpetuity.  Members needed to assess the proposal on its own merits without relying on additional landscaping to screen the development.  A Member indicated that although the Planning Committee had visited the application site, Members had not had the benefit of the view before them today; the pool house would extend west away from the existing screening and did not cover the main part of the properties so would impact on the view from the hill.  As such, he wondered whether the screening would be sufficient to mitigate the harm that would be done by increasing the bulk of the property.  The proposer of the motion indicated that Members had already heard that the building was larger than any other house within that setting and this proposal would mean it was increased by a further 30%, as such, there must be an overbearing impact, particularly in terms of the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  In response to the comments, the Development Management Manager confirmed that, as set out in the Committee report, landscaping conditions were proposed which would provide an enhancement in terms of the existing soft landscaping features and the Landscape Officer had commented on providing mitigation.   In terms of the overall scale, it was clear there would be additional volume but that must be assessed in its context and, in terms of impact, there was a clear reduction from the proposal originally submitted and the Landscape Officer had indicated it would result in minimal harm.  Whilst there was reference to increased size and scale, the percentage increase was not a determinative factor set out in policy and each application must be considered on its own merits.  

20.7          Upon being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application fell.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion appreciated the concerns regarding the proposal but it had been assessed by the Landscape Officer, who was a technical expert, who had found that the impact would be minimal.  She was disappointed no response had been received from the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Board but, in her view, she did not think there were enough reasons to refuse the application based on the evidence before them.  Clarification was provided that, whilst the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Board did comment on planning applications, this proposal was outside of its remit as a consultee.  Upon being take to the vote, it was

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