Agenda item

The Officers referred to the variety of house styles and sizes in the vicinity commenting that they believed that the proposal was acceptable. Also, it was noted that the ridge height was to be increased by less that 1 ½ metres which Officers felt was acceptable and that the blocking in of a side window would help alleviate existing overlooking.

Reference was made to the relationship with neighbouring properties which Officers considered acceptable.  The distance of the proposal with the neighbours was highlighted and a discrepancy in the report at paragraph 5.9 was explained in that the distance was just over 30 metres and not 60 metres as referred to. It was reported that this had caused concern to the Letcombe Regis Parish Meeting which had sought a deferral of consideration of the application.  Correspondence had been received Charles Rowe on behalf of Letcombe Bassett Parish Meeting on this issue which was read out in full at the meeting as follows: - 

Mr Rowe had commented that the Letcombe Bassett Parish Meeting had become aware of a serious and material error in the report concerning this development which would have a very substantial impact on the whole western part of the village. The Parish Meeting had therefore requested a deferment of the Committee's consideration of this application until the source of the error was determined and a re-evaluation of the application was carried out based on the correct information.  Mr Rowe had reported that paragraph 5.9 of the report stated that the properties on the other side of the road had also raised concerns about overlooking, but at a distance of some 60metres, there was not considered to be any harmful impact. As such, it was considered that the proposal did not harm the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Mr Rowe had stated that the distance of 60 metres was wrong and that the correct distance was 30 metres being half of the distance stated in the report. The Parish Meeting had considered that the whole evaluation of the impact of this development on the properties on the other side of the road had therefore been based on a false premise. Whilst realising that  30 metres might be slightly greater than the standard threshold for overlooking, considerations of amenities, appearance, layout and other matters would be different for houses 60 metres away than for houses 30 metres away. Therefore, the Parish Meeting did not have confidence in an evaluation which had such a serious error at its heart and it was considered that it would be a poor reflection on local democracy if the present evaluation was allowed to stand. Mr Rowe had commented that the Parish Meeting had hoped that common sense would prevail and that another evaluation would be requested based on the correct information.  He explained that the Parish Meeting would reserve the right to consider a legal challenge to any Committee decision based on the present evaluation.

The Officer clarified that in respect of these comments it was her view that the reference to 60 metres was a typographical error and not one which she considered should lead to deferral of the application. She asked Members to note the observations and findings in the report and to have regard to the plan which clearly had a scale on it showing a distance of 25metres.  She commented that it was clear from the plan that the distance was not 60 metres. Furthermore, she noted that the case officer had visited the site (as evidence by the photographs shown at the meeting) and that any judgement of the application would be made on the basis of a site visit and not just plans.  She was also aware that some Members would have visited the site before the meeting.  She commented that she considered that the Committee should determine the application.

Charles Rowe speaking on behalf of the Parish Council made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that there had been a meeting in the village specifically to discuss this proposal and all residents of houses in the west side of village had been present and had unanimously agreed to object to the application.  Concerns were raised regarding the need to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area; the huge footprint being different to the character of the surrounding houses; the proposal being two storey; overlooking; adverse visual appearance which would change the character of the village; size; the proposal being clearly visible; lack of reference in the report to the existing design of the property which was unacceptable and yet the application was seeking to preserve the wood and brick feature and use of materials.

One Member commented that he had considered the proposal having regard to the proximity of the Listed Building.  However, he commented that when he had visited the site he had considered that the view of the new building would be no worse than the existing.  He noted that the proposal was higher than the ListedBuilding and would be seen but he did not thing the position was worsened. As such he did not believe that there were material reasons to refuse the application.

Another Member commented that he considered that the existing dwelling was not a distinguished building and that on balance the proposal would be an improvement. He explained that he had been concerned regarding the impact of the eastern elevation, but he noted that the dormer window would be to a bathroom and would be obscure glazing. He considered that this would improve the situation and that there were no grounds to refuse the application.

One Member commented that this was a missed opportunity to improve the area and that he did not support the proposal.  However, he noted that each application needed to be considered on its merits as presented and that he could see no reasons to refuse the application.

Another Member supported the proposal noting the diversity of design in the area.

The Officers commented that condition 2 in the report could be amended to ask the applicant to submit materials so as to ensure that they matched the existing dwelling.

The Chairman referred to the report stating he believed that notwithstanding the discrepancy in the report it was clear that the distance of the proposal to neighbouring properties was 30 metres.  He highlighted the request for deferral of the application by the Parish Council but he did not consider this was justified and it was not supported by the Committee.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application LBA/425/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report with condition 2 being amended to require that the applicant should make sure materials match the existing materials and a further condition to require that the existing  bathroom window be obscure glazed and that the end window be removed.