Agenda item

(Councillors Matthew Barber and Terry Cox had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration).

Further to the report, the Committee noted an amendment to paragraph 5.4 in that the parking spaces would be conditioned to remain as such as set out in condition 3 in the report and not condition 4.

David Randall, the Clerk of Sparsholt Parish Council made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically referred to the proposal being contrary to Planning Policies HE1, DC5 and DC9 and raised concerns regarding over development in that the property was once a 2 bedroom bungalow and was now a 6 bedroom detached house; adverse impact in terms of dominance and visual intrusion; overlooking of the road and surrounding properties; lack of planning and thought in terms of rain water and sewage disposal; the possibility of a septic tank which had not been declared on the application; parking; lack of availability of on-street parking; access; pedestrian safety; traffic and traffic congestion.

Dr Peter Sullivan, the applicant made a statement in support of the application advising that the reason for the extension was to provide a larger bedroom for his son and to provide additional accommodation for his elderly mother whom he needed to care for.  He explained that the house did not have 6 bedrooms and that the proposal was for one extra bedroom only. He explained that there would be a dressing room and study. He commented that the objections were not material planning objections and that the only substantial concern raised related to traffic which he explained was irrelevant as there would be no increase in traffic as a result of the proposal.  He commented that the sewage disposal had been a concern which had now been resolved.  He reported that there had been root damage to the existing septic tank and he had had a new soak away fitted. He commented that over dominance was not an issue.  Finally, he commented that the one substantial objection might be on the grounds of overlooking and to this end he advised that he wished to amend the application to provide for an amended design to include roof velux windows on the upper floors and a redesign of the lower windows to be in keeping with the velux windows.

In response to a question raised it was explained that the first floor windows overlooked Watery Lane and that the Officer had no objections to these as it was not unusual to have windows overlooking front gardens.  It was reported that the changes to the application described by the applicant would be materially sufficient to justify a fresh application given the location of the site in the Conservation Area.

The Officers clarified that Members should determine the plans before them.

Some Members spoke in support of the application and whilst noting that changes to the windows might lessen the impact further, the proposal as presented was not unreasonable.  It was commented that the level of overlooking was no greater than many properties.

One Member commented that in his view velux windows would not be appropriate and might be visually harmful in this location.  

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application SPA/15560/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.