Agenda item

Single storey side and rear extension to an existing dwelling (as amended by application form and site survey received 20 October 2023).

The committee considered planning application P23/V1800/HH for single storey side and rear extension to an existing dwelling (as amended by application form and site survey received 20 October 2023), at 25 Parklands, Besselsleigh, Abingdon, OX13 5PN.

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

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application had been referred to the committee at the request of the local ward member. The planning officer advised the committee that the location plan submitted included all land required to carry out the development which included the access road for the property from the adopted highway. He confirmed this was a technical requirement for the validation of the application and was not the applicant claiming ownership. The planning officer also advised the committee that there had been a previous application on the site for the erection of a detached garage on land to the west of the dwelling. The applicant had been informed that in line with the biodiversity plan submitted with the original application for the development this land was not residential curtilage and therefore the development was not acceptable. The officer stated that the application before the committee had removed any development on this land and that the application did not propose change of use of this land and nor did its inclusion in the application boundary constitute a change of use.

The planning officer informed the committee that the application sought a small front extension which would reduce the length of the driveway slightly and that the proposal followed the existing garage wall. The extension would extend beyond the existing rear of the house by 3.8 metres and the plans indicated that this would create a new bedroom to the rear of the property. The planning officer advised that the property benefitted from all permitted development rights and there was no planning condition preventing the conversion of the garage. He informed the committee that much of the proposed development could be carried out under permitted development rights and indicated that a small area of the extension would exceed the permitted development limits hence the need for the application.

The planning officer concluded that officers considered the impacts of the application acceptable when the permitted development fall back was considered and that the loss of a parking space was acceptable due to the ability for displacement across the estate roads.

Jane Cranston spoke on behalf of Besselsleigh Parish Council, objecting to the application.

Scott Lawrie spoke objecting to the application.

Peter Gray, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Mark Coleman, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the meeting. The committee thanked the planning officer for their clear report and noted the majority of what had been applied for could be carried out under permitted development rights. The committee went on to ask the planning officer to confirm that the application was to create extra living space in the house and not to create an additional bedroom. The planning officer advised that as the submitted plans showed a bedroom it was a requirement to take account of this, however they went on to confirm that any room type could have been indicated on the plans and the space later turned into a bedroom which would not require planning permission.

The committee noted that the highways authority had not submitted any objection to the application on the basis that Parklands was not highway land. The planning officer confirmed this but advised that they had considered highway safety implications in their report.

The committee asked the planning officer to confirm if as stated on the application form the proposal included the erection of a 1.8 metre wall. The planning officer advised that this was not shown on the plans or detailed in the description of development and therefore did not form part of the application to be considered.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote.

The committee noted that the application sought permission for a small expansion on what could be done under permitted development rights and that it did not see this as a reason to refuse the application.

The committee had concerns over the loss of a parking space at the property and the high levels of parking on the road at the site but was of the view that the requirement to provide an additional parking space would be more detrimental to the character of the development.

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P23/V1800/FUL, subject to the following conditions: