Agenda item

P22/V1786/HH - Hillsview 13 Sunningwell Road Sunningwell Abingdon, OX13 6BJ

Application to raise existing roof ridge to form chalet bungalow with rooms in the roof (part retrospective) (As amended by plans received 1 September 2022).



The committee considered planning application P22/V1786/HH for the application to raise existing roof ridge to form chalet bungalow with rooms in the roof (part retrospective) (As amended by plans received 01.09.22), on land at Hillsview 13 Sunningwell Road Sunningwell 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. 


The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that this was called into the committee by a local ward member, Councillor Emily Smith. The application itself was part retrospective and falls withing the Oxford Green Belt. Work original commenced on the site under the assumption that it was allowed via permitted development rights. However, as a prior approval application was required, this was not the case. In response to this site background, a condition for this application for the removal of those works within two months was proposed and agreed by the applicant. It was emphasised however, that these works are not material considerations to this application.


The planning officer informed the committee that in order for an application to be acceptable it would need to meet the criteria for developments in a green belt or be considered to be a special circumstance. As the applicant retained the right to build a single storey extension to the rear of their property through permitted development rights, something the applicant considered a fallback position in case this application was refused, this would be considered a material planning consideration for the application and so provide the special circumstance needed for the proposed development to be acceptable in a green belt.


The reason the planning officer believed this permitted development position would provide the circumstances which would allow for the approval of the application was that the fallback development would have a larger increase in the overall footprint of the property over a larger area than that proposed in the application. In addition, as the development in the application would be contained within the existing footprint of the building while ensuring the height of the building is in keeping with the others in the area, that distance between the rear windows and the rear neighbour would be in excess of the design guide, and that it would allow for a restriction to be put on further permitted development rights, the planning officer believed this application should be approved.


Ultimately, as the planning officer believed that the proposal would not be considered overbearing on the neighbours on either side, had sufficient parking, was fully contained in the existing footprint, and had a simplified design in comparison to the permitted development option, which is a material consideration, it was recommended for approval.



John Hughes, Richard Adams, and Stuart Morgan spoke objecting to the application. 


Kathy Hills, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 


Councillor Emily Smith and Debby Hallett, local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application.



The committee conducted a site visit prior to the discission of this application. When discussing the impact the proposed development would have on Sunningwell Road, it was noted that there were lots of variety in houses and lots of bungalow conversions in the area.


The committee also agreed with the planning officer’s report that the proposed development was a better option than the applicant using their permitted development rights for a single storey rear extension as the application presented to the committee was neater, contained within the existing footprint of the building, of a lower total volume increase, and fitting in with the character of the area with the potential of a condition to restrict further permitted development rights. An additional potential condition was also raised for the roof light height to be over 1.7metres, and this was agreed by the committee to be appropriate.


Ultimately, as the permitted development fallback scenario was considered a realistic one which would be more harmful than proposed application, and the application was not out of character with the area or harmful to neighbours’ amenity, the special circumstances that allow for this development was considered to be met and the committee agreed to approve the application subject to conditions.



A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote. 


RESOLVED: to approve planning application P22/V1786/HH, subject to the following conditions:


[Need updated conditions wording]



1. Approved plans



2. Materials in accordance with the application

3. Permitted development restriction for extensions

4. Maintain parking spaces free from obstruction

Supporting documents: