Issue - meetings

This application proposes the erection of a part two storey and part single storey side extension; a single storey rear extension; hip-to-gable roof extension including rear dormer window and rooflights; gabled roof over side extension; and a front porch; partial demolition of garage; and conversion of the building into 2 self-contained flats (Part Retrospective, Part Proposed).

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)      The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main committee report.

PROPOSAL

Erection of a part two storey and part single storey side extension; a single storey rear extension; hip-to-gable roof extension including rear dormer window and rooflights; gabled roof over side extension; and a front porch; partial demolition of garage; and conversion of the building into 2 self-contained flats (Part Retrospective, Part Proposed)

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main committee report.

Brooke Storey Vowles (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the planning application committee report, detailing the proposal for the erection of a part two storey and part single storey side extension; a single storey rear extension; hip-to-gable roof extension including rear dormer window and rooflights; gabled roof over side extension; and a front porch; partial demolition of garage; and conversion of the building into 2 self-contained flats (Part Retrospective, Part Proposed).

Attention was drawn to the supplementary report, detailing two additional comments received since the publication of the committee report, which did not specifically raise an objection but were queries, and as such, the number of objections remained the same. The recommendation remained to grant consent subject to the conditions and informatives, as set out within the main committee report.

The Chair thanked Brooke Storey Vowles for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then invited William Avery (who had registered to speak as the applicant’s representative) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

•         The application followed two highly productive pre-application processes and extensive dialogue with the case officer and the planning team.

•         In commending the hard work of the officers involved, it was asserted that there was nothing before the committee that, when considered in the context of the enforcement history and what were believed to be non-material unrelated objections, necessitated anything other than a straightforward delegated approval for the extensions to the house and the conversion already allowed via the appeal. However, the representative acknowledged and understood the community concerns.

•         The applicant representative reassured members that the applicant was committed to resolving previous breaches and to constructing the policy-compliant design. The permission was required for the property owner to begin rectifying the previous breaches, proceed with the building works, and move forward with their lives. The representative detailed that he had advised the applicant that the proposed design was entirely policy-compliant and expressed delight that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) concurred.

•         The change of use had already been established through the appeal. The quality of accommodation had been confirmed to be policy compliant. The existing deviation from the previously approved roof design had been rectified with the twin gable design, which was fully compliant with the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). It was noted that there was no material change to the amenity impact when compared to the 2017 approval and the allowed appeal for application reference 2022/3944.

•         In concluding, the applicants representative detailed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4