Agenda item

(Wards Affected: Greendown)

Councillor Jenny Hannaby had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Officers explained the details of the amended scheme and reported that, in their opinion, the amended plans now met the requirements sought by Members at the earlier meeting of the Committee when consideration of this application had been deferred.

Attention was drawn to a letter sent to all Members of the Committee from the neighbour, reiterating concerns previously raised and attaching a petition of 58 signatures objecting to the application.

Mrs Scatchard made a statement objecting to the applications, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  She commented that, whilst welcoming the amended plans, most of the concerns previously raised had not been addressed and she highlighted that the Parish Council had now raised objections.  She particularly raised concern regarding the loss of the tiled catslide roof;  the insertion of dormer windows; the proposal having an adverse visual impact; overlooking; roof heights; loss of light; visual intrusion; appearance; overcrowding; the annex needing to be subservient to the main dwelling; the need for a separate access; objection to living accommodation being at first floor level resulting in overlooking; change of use; loss of privacy; materials; the proposal neither enhancing nor protecting the character and appearance of the area; unreasonable siting of the garage; and detrimental impact on the Conservation Area.   She questioned the need for the dormer windows and suggested that the living accommodation should be at ground floor level.  Furthermore, she referred to 2 other applications in the village where there had been a requirement for the retention of the catslide roofs.

The local Member raised objection to the applications in terms of the roof height, suggesting that as the height was now higher and the lower height had been previously been found unacceptable, the current proposal should be refused.  He referred to the need for Members to be consistent in decision-making, commenting that Rose Cottage and Yew Tree Barn were not allowed dormers in their catslide roofs.  He expressed concern regarding overlooking and commented that the proposal did nothing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area.  Finally, he referred to the petition of 58 signatures against the proposal.

The Officers explained that at the previous meeting of the Committee concerns had not been raised regarding the dormer windows and hence this matter had not been discussed with the applicant.  It was commented that the dormer closest to the neighbour was to a bathroom and would be obscure glazed and the other was to a landing.  It was explained that the barn was wider than the proposed replacement and whilst it was correct to say that the ridge height would be higher, the eaves would be lower by some half a metre and the Officers did not believe this would cause demonstrable harm sufficient to warrant refusal.  Furthermore in relation to the annex, there were roof lights proposed.  However, a condition was proposed which would require that these dormer windows would be 1.7 metres above floor height, which would mean that it would be difficult for anyone to look out of them. 

Some Members spoke in support of the applications commenting that on balance the current proposal was now acceptable, although condition 6 should be amended to provide that cottage-style windows should be included.  Furthermore, it was noted that the front garden was surrounded by white railings and that these should be retained.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that application CHD/713/5 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report with condition 6 being amended to require that the windows should be a cottage-style and a further condition requiring that the metal railings to the front of the property should be retained and painted white; and

(b)        that application CHD/713/6-CA be approved subject to the condition set out in the report.