Agenda item

Proposed garage extension. (Amended Plans received 5th October showing the garage set down and moved off the shared boundary with number 2 Gooseacre).

Councillor Diana Lugova, a local ward councillor, stood down from the committee for consideration of this item.

The committee considered application P20/V1492/HH for a proposed garage extension (amended Plans received 5th October showing the garage set down and moved off the shared boundary with number 2 Gooseacre) at 1 Gooseacre, Radley, Abingdon.

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. Consideration of this application by the committee had been deferred at its meeting on 2 December 2020, owing to an expiration of time under the principles of the council’s constitution. A site visit had been conducted on 14 December 2020.

The planning officer reported that amended plans had been received on 5 October 2020, depicting the garage with a reduced roof height of 4.0m, compared to the 4.9m originally proposed, with an altered pitch roof design, and set off the neighbouring boundary by an additional 300mm. Officers considered that the extension to the garage was compliant with the requirements set out in Policy CP37 of the Local Plan Part 1 and the guidance contained within the Vale of White Horse Design Guide 2015 Supplementary Planning Document. The garage would remain single-storey and subordinate to the main dwelling. The proposal was considered to be proportionate in scale to the main property, with a sympathetic form, through the use of a dual pitched roof form and matching building materials.

Mr. Brian Hicks, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. The democratic services officer had sent a statement from Mr Hicks to the committee prior to the meeting.

Mr. and Mrs. Lewis, the applicants, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Bob Johnston, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee expressed concern about the potential harm that the development might make to an attractive mature tree on the site. It noted from the applicants that amended plans had relocated the wall away from the boundary fence and the height of the proposed development had been reduced significantly. Also, building works would be minimised, along with potential harm to the tree, through building upon an existing concrete base. The committee noted that the forestry officer had examined the issue of protecting the tree and had concluded that it did not meet the criteria to be protected by a tree preservation order and that imposing a planning condition was not an appropriate solution. However, an Informative, strongly advising to safeguard the tree during works, could be apposite.

A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission, with the inclusion of a tree Informative, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P20/V1492/HH, subject to the following conditions and with the addition of an Informative regarding tree safeguarding:

Standard:

1. Commencement of development within three years

2. Works in accordance with the approved plans

Compliance:

3. Materials in accordance with approved details

Informative:

4. Party Wall Informative

5. Tree management informative

Additional Informative: safeguarding of tree on application site.