Agenda item

(Wards Affected: Sutton Courtenay and Appleford)

Further to the report the Committee noted that the Parish Council had objected to the application raising concerns in so far as it questioned whether the building would be ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling.  It was noted that there was planning permission for four terraced properties which was part implemented and that the extension which formed part of number four was part of that.  The Committee also noted that amended plans had been received setting out proposed fenestration and doors.  It was commented that there had been no restriction concerning windows on the application presented in 2004 and the Officers considered that there were no reasons to make restrictions now.  However, as the proposal would be habitable it was considered reasonable to require obscure glazing to avoid overlooking.  It was noted that planning permission was not required for internal walls and it was agreed that it was reasonable to restrict the ground floor to garage accommodation in view of the recent flooding.

Mr David Hignall made a statement on behalf of Sutton Courtney Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concern regarding development taking place and retrospective planning permission being granted; the proposal being out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area; the possibility that the building could easily become a separate dwelling; development onsite being not in accordance with the previous planning permission thus making it void; sill heights which were below eye level; over looking; loss of privacy; and doubt that the building lay within a recognised curtilege.  He recommended that the Committee should defer consideration of the application pending a site visit by all Members of the Committee.

Jane Lister, the applicant made a statement in support of the application advising that contrary to the statement made by Mr Hignall there had been no retrospective planning applications in respect of this site.  She commented that she had understood that she only needed planning permission for windows and that she had received a letter advising her that no further planning permissions were required.

The local Member referred to the history of the site advising that there had been some enforcement issues.  He advised the Committee that the main dwelling provided bed and breakfast accommodation and he was concerned that this ancillary accommodation would be used as part of that and he asked whether this could be prevented.  He welcomed that the garage block should remain as a garage block but commented that an adequate turning space should be retained.  He commented that subject to conditions to address the concerns raised he had no other objections to the application.

Further to the statements made the Council’s Solicitor advised Members that the extant planning permission was not nil and void just because development had progressed allegedly not in accordance with the plans.

The Officers reported that they were aware of the Bed and Breakfast use at the premises and enforcement action was being considered.  In response to a question raised, the Officers clarified that planning permission was not necessary for all bed and breakfast accommodation.  Permission was dependent upon the proportion of the building being used in such a way and whether this altered the building’s primary use and that each case needed to be considered on its merits.

One Member expressed concern that allowing this application would open the floodgates for other applications to build dwelling space above their garages. Another Member asked the Officers to confirm that as this development had no kitchen it would remain as ancillary accommodation. It was confirmed that should a kitchen be added further permission would be required.

The Members discussed whether it would be possible to prevent the accommodation being used for bed and breakfast purposes or as a separate dwelling place. To this end it was considered that an informative be added to the permission acknowledging that the proposal would provide ancillary accommodation for the main dwelling but this did not convey planning permission for its use for Bed and Breakfast accommodation.

One Member suggested the removal of permitted development rights but this was not considered reasonable as such rights had not been removed as part of the permission granted in 2004.

By 12 votes to 2 with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that application SUT/11933/11 be approved subject to:-

(1)              the conditions set out in the report

(2)              an informative to the provide that this permission does not allow the accommodation to be used as a separate dwelling or to be used as bed and breakfast accommodation.