Agenda item

The officer presented the report on application P14/V22578/FUL for a box dormer and new gable end to form a loft room; a single storey side extension with double storey portion to extend the existing first floor bathroom; and to demolish the existing garage at 64 North Hinksey Lane, North Hinksey, OX2 0YL.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report: Additional representation has been received from the Drainage Officer:  “My only comment on this relates to the excavation to the rear of the existing building and the requirement for suitable drainage to accompany this. Details of this should be submitted and approved prior to development commencing.”

Officer’s Response: The requested condition will be added to any planning permission granted.

A petition has been received from local residents re-iterating the same issues highlighted within the report.

Officer Response: The substance of the objections has already been covered in detail within the committee report.

The submitted plans indicate that the proposed living room and the enlarged kitchen are to be used as a shared living space. There are no other indicators that suggest the dwelling would be used for multiple occupants. It is not considered in the officer’s opinion that the dwelling would be converted into a House in Multiple Occupation.

The proposal will be seen within the context of the existing property and the surrounding area. It is not considered that the proposed works and alterations appear incongruous or obtrusive, and the proposed development will not cause harm to the character or appearance of the existing building or the surrounding area. In addition the neighbouring properties have been extended and altered in a similar way.

The Highways Liaison Officer has no objection to the proposal, as such it is considered the proposal, complies with the provisions of the development plan, in particular policy DC5 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 and with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Andrew Pritchard, a representative of North Hinksey Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The application being contrary to:

o   DC1 – affecting the character of the area;

o   DG102 – the Design Guide;

o   DG104 – avoiding proposals which wraparound existing dwellings and conflicting roof forms;

o   DG105 – not in line with the existing design and window layout;

o   DG108 – impact on neighbours with overlooking;

o   DG110 – dormer roof extensions should be set within the roof slope; and

·         Drainage of surface and subterranean water damaging neighbouring properties.

John Brett, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         Contrary to DC1 – high quality and local distinctiveness;

·         Contrary to DC9 – amenity of neighbours whereby the proposal will be  overbearing and dominant;

·         The rendered blockwork is out of character;

·         Question reasons for development as four bathrooms would indicate multiple occupancy; and

·         Impact on parking.

Vivienne Cuffolo, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. Her speech included the following:

·         The current property is un-extended and in poor condition;

·         The chimney meets regulation compliance;

·         The loft extension falls within permitted development;

·         The ground floor extension has been designed within the parameters of permitted development to minimise impact;

·         It isn’t a conservation area but happy to negotiate matching brick with render around the sliding doors.

Councillor Eric Batts, one of the ward councillors, made the following comments:

·         Chimney pollution is an environmental health issue;

·         There are many different designs in the area;

·         It’s good that the applicant is prepared to change materials;

·         Under planning law there are no grounds for refusal.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate. They discussed what was within the parameters of permitted development (chimney, box dormer) and restrictions on imposing conditions on matching materials.

RESOLVED (for 11; against 1; abstentions 2)

To grant planning permission to approve application P14/V2578/HH subject to the following conditions:

1.    TL1 - Time limit - full application (full).

2.    Approved plans.

3.    MC3 - Materials in Accordance with application (full).