Agenda item

Mr M Smith, on behalf of the Town Council, made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He considered that it was important that town and parish councils were made aware of how much weight was given to the Council’s House Extensions Design Guide by Officers and the Committee in considering planning applications.  Furthermore, he was perplexed as to what constituted permitted development and considered that the combined impact of all the extensions on the application site should be taken into account.

Ms C Riggs made a statement objecting to the application, raising concern relating to matters already covered in the report.  She considered that the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance House Extensions Design Guide, adopted as part of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011, was a material consideration in determining a planning application, in that it stated that “two storey side extensions should normally be at least 1m from the boundary”.  Referring to the single storey extension already build as permitted development, she advised that it was 6.6m in length contrary to guidance set out in the Design Guide, which stated that “rear extensions should not normally exceed 4m”.  She believed that the combined effect of the application and the single storey rear extension already built by the applicant under permitted development rights would be identical to the application refused by the Committee on 19 May 2005 and dismissed on appeal.  In dismissing the appeal the Inspector concluded that “the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of No 7 Norman Avenue”.  Referring to the Officer report, which concluded that the Inspector was referring to the single storey element of the proposal and the reasons given why, in the Officer’s opinion, the amenity of the occupiers of No 7 would not be harmed by the proposed two storey extension and that the appeal inspector had not objected to this element of the previous proposal, Ms Riggs expressed doubts as to how these conclusions could be drawn having regard to the appeal decision letter.  She suggested that by implementing a previously unacceptable proposal as a two stage process did not make the final product and effect anymore acceptable and the harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring properties would be just the same.  She also made the point that the very small twin opening doors, with a total width of 1m proposed for the front of the ground floor extension would add to the squeezed and cramped appearance of the development, an observation made also by the Inspector.  Finally, she referred to a previous permission granted in 2003 for a two storey side and rear extension, which had not yet been implemented and stated that this, together with the current proposal, would mean the only window in her living room would be at the dark end of a 6m long tunnel created by extensions on both boundaries.  She urged the Committee to refuse the application.

The Area Planning Officer confirmed that the Design Guide required extensions to be 2m off the boundary to avoid a terracing effect, however, in this instance the possible terracing effect was not significant and therefore the guidance set out in the Design Guide did not apply.  He confirmed that the single storey extension had been built as permitted development, as it had been constructed with a flat roof and was narrow in its design.  At the request of the Committee, the Officer explained the rules governing permitted development.

Some Members referred to the detrimental impact of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy and the creation of a terracing effect.  One Member considered that the single storey extension built under permitted development caused more harm than the proposed development.  Other Members expressed the view that there were no justifiable planning reasons to refuse the application.

By 9 votes to 5, with 1 abstension, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/19058/4 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.