Extension and alteration to dwelling.  Erection of a greenhouse.  Creation of new vehicular access.  Demolition of existing outbuildings.

Extension and alteration to dwelling.  Erection of a greenhouse.  Creation of new vehicular access.  Demolition of existing outbuildings.

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the start of the meeting

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, referred to the late material and outlined three elements to the proposal. He informed the committee that the greenhouse at the site was a small construction, with no significant issues. He confirmed that, to address concerns about overlooking, the applicant had said that he would be willing to remove a first floor gable window at the property. Despite the willingness, the Group Manager said that amended plans on this aspect had not been requested due to fundamental concerns relating to the scale of the development. Furthermore, having reviewed existing access and parking arrangements at the site, (and in view of the fact that these would remain unchanged), the third reason for refusing the application, (relating to parking arrangements), had proved unsustainable and had been withdrawn. The Group Manager subsequently confirmed that the recommendation to refuse the application remained unchanged due to concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding conservation area.

Public Speaker

The applicant said that the officer’s report had focussed on three issues; he said that the first issue, regarding the gable window, (referred to in the statement made by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing), could be removed as part of the planning agreement. He said that the second issue, regarding access arrangements had been considered acceptable to Gloucestershire County Highways. In relation to the third issue, regarding the scale and impact of the proposals, the applicant refuted the suggestion that the extension could be seen from the grassland to the south of the property, and said that, from the main road the view was largely shielded, with the exception of a single viewpoint between two structures, which incurred minimal impact. Furthermore, he believed the visual impact of the proposals to the north of the site would also be generally unaffected. The applicant said that, although quite hidden, the property was oppressively overlooked by the adjacent property. On this basis, he hoped the extension would create an element of privacy, which it currently did not enjoy. Referring to the scale of the property, the applicant said that there would be a net increase of 38 per cent to the footprint of the property and that many similar properties in the area had been extended to this scale, some of which were located in significantly more prominent positions. Detailing some of the features the extension would provide, the applicant said that he had taken great care to ensure that the design of the scheme reflected the character of the building and that it complied with government policy. Noting the lack of objection from the parish council, the applicant said that the extension would support the needs of a growing family and hopefully improve the living standards of a defective building, whilst at the same time, incurring minimal impact.

Committee consideration

Ward member, Councillor Frankie Evans, reflected on the lack of objection from the parish council and from Gloucestershire County Highways. With no planning history to the application, Councillor Evans said she would be supporting the application. Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick said that she too would support the application, with the proviso that planning permission be conditioned to remove the gable end window of the property. Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, said that it would be difficult to condition this particular aspect of the proposal and suggested delegating authority to officers to issue a permission on receipt of revised plans confirming its removal. Other members believed the proposals would significantly enhance the property.

Vote

Councillor Frankie Evans proposed that delegated consent be considered, subject to appropriate conditions and to the removal of the gable end window at the site. Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick seconded the proposal. The reason suggested for approving the application was that the design and scale of the development was considered acceptable, with no perceived harmful effect on the conservation area. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that delegated authority be given to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing to grant planning permission on receipt of revised plans to remove the first floor gable end of the window to the proposal. Planning permission subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions, including the removal of rights to subsequently install the gable end window at the property.

For (14)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)