Proposed extension and enlargement of existing sun room.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Norman had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Greenow fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs S Soilleux, of Bartestree and Lugwardine Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Davies, a local resident and neighbour, spoke in objection. 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor DW Greenow spoke on the application.

He commented that the proposal, which would increase the size of the dwelling by some 60% was contrary to policy BL2 of the adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan.  It would have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of several properties.  

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the parish council’s objection was noted and concern was expressed about the scale of the development and its effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

A view was also expressed that there were other properties in the development that were closer to one another than neighbouring properties would be to the extended dwelling. This made it difficult to refuse the application.

The Lead Development Manager confirmed that there were no policies limiting the percentage by which a dwelling could be extended.  Officers considered the design was acceptable and compatible with other properties in the area and to be in accordance with policy. Other properties nearby were closer to one another than neighbouring properties would be to the extended dwelling and weight would be given to that point by an inspector in the event of an appeal.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his view that the development would be detrimental.  The rear of the extended property would be close to the neighbouring property as opposed to being close to the side of the property as in the case of the distances between other properties in the area to which reference had been made.

Councillor Seldon proposed and Councillor Edwards seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policy SD1 of the Core Strategy and policy BL2 of the Neighbourhood Development Plan by reason of design and relationship with adjoining dwellings.  The motion was carried with 5 votes in favour, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to policy SD1 of the Core Strategy and policy BL2 of the Neighbourhood Development Plan and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to detail these reasons.