Agenda item

Single storey rear extension (Resubmission of S.22/2421/HHOLD).

The Planning Officer introduced the report and explained that the application was for a single storey extension to the rear of the existing building. He showed the Committee the plans for the site and highlighted the following key points:

·       The site was located on Minchinhampton common.

·       The proposed single storey extension would be linked to the existing property with a flat roof. 

·       The site would provide more than the required number of parking spaces.

Councillor Hurst spoke as a Ward Member for Minchinhampton, the adjoining Parish. He raised concern over the current property being let out as a holiday home and whether that was permitted under its current use class (C3). He raised further concerns over the inadequate amount of parking for the size of the proposed dwelling and insisted this would spill out onto the surrounding common. He requested that the Committee consider conditioning its use to C3 to prevent a change of use into a large holiday let.

Councillor Smith spoke against the application as the Ward Member for the area. He asked the committee to refuse the application because it was in contradiction with Local Plan Policy HC8. He felt that the proposal did not meet all of the listed criteria and asked the Committee to consider the following:

·       If the plot size was sufficient to not result in a cramped or overdeveloped site.

·       If the height, scale, form and design of the extension was in keeping with the scale and character of the original building. Policy HC8 also allowed to take into account any cumulative additions of which this building had.

·       Would there be sufficient space for parking that did not detract from the character and the appearance of the area.

·       The extension should complement the scale and style of the house and follow the 4 main principals listed in 4.56 of the Local Plan.

He also drew the committee’s attention to the Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA) discussion of the last item and highlighted that the application site was within the curtilage of the listed Moor Court (main house).

Councillor Turner spoke as a Ward Member for Minchinhampton and raised concerns with the scale of the development, the use of the site as a holiday let and that the parking would overspill onto Minchinhampton common which was a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Ms James, a local resident, spoke against the application. She gave a brief history that the dwelling was part of the original Moor Court Estate built in the 1860’s, the main house was Grade II listed in 1988. She highlighted the main objection reasons:

·       Overdevelopment of the site. There had already beena two-storey extension completed in 1988.

·       The proposal significantly reduced the space for parking and the garden amenity.

·       The report stated that the loss of gardens would be offset by the proximity to the common, this was not practical to utilise the common as private amenity space.

·       The extension was not in keeping with the age and character of the existing dwelling and was therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy HC8.

·       It would be visible by walkers along the common and block views.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries it was confirmed:

·       The application could only be assessed as its current class. If there was a change of use requested, it would need to be re-assessed. The class C3 allows for the single-family dwelling to be used as holiday let.

·       It would be unreasonable to condition the occupancy of the property due to permitted development rights.

·       The minimum requirement of 20sqm related to new residential properties but was used as a guide for existing properties.

·       The Local Plan Parking Standards required 2 spaces per dwelling, this was not relative to the number of bedrooms.

In response to Councillor Luff, the Planning Officer clarified which parts of the dwelling were original and what had been extended already.

Councillor Schoemaker questioned whether there was a limit to how much a dwelling could be extended. The Planning Officer confirmed that there were no specific limitations to adhere to as long as the proposal was compliant with the local plan. He reminded the Committee the previous extension pre-dated the Local Plan.

In response to Councillor Jones it was confirmed that there were no outstanding enforcement cases surrounding the property. Any allegations relating to a breach of a covenant would not carry weight in respect of determining the planning application.

The Chair questioned Policy HC8 and its reference to cumulative additions. The Planning Officer confirmed that Members would need to consider the wider context of the site whilst taking into account the cumulative effects of the extensions and not compare the propsal solely to the original dwelling.

It was confirmed that there was a Public Right of Way (PROW) parallel to the site which the extension would be visible from.

Councillor Ryder proposed to refuse the application and Councillor Brown seconded.

Councillors debated the refusal reasons, the cumulative impact of the previous extension and the current proposal and the heritage value of the site. Possible refusal reasons were:

·       Not compliant with Policy HC8.

·       Overdevelopment of the site would harm the character of the area (SSSI).

·       Cumulative effect of the extension would not be subservient.

Councillor Ryder confirmed the refusal reason was non-compliance with Local Plan Policy HC8. The cumulative effect of the extension would result in an appearance that was not subservient, was out of character and would lead to the overdevelopment of the plot which would adversely impact the visual amenity of the common. The final wording of which would be agreed by the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair. Councillor Brown seconded.

Councillor Pearcy debated whether the parking detracted from the character and appearance of the area.

Councillor Miles felt that there was no significant harm on the view and the application met all the required standards.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried.

RESOLVED  To refuse permission and to delegate to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair to agree the wording of the refusal reasons.