Agenda item

Application to Vary Condition 2 of Approved P/A P/HOU/2022/04740 (Bungalow Conversion - extensions to form 2 storey dwelling) to amend plans.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the existing street scene as well as approved and proposed elevations and floor plans were shown. Members were informed that the principle of development had already been established and they were provided with details of the site context and location plan. The Case Officer highlighted that the scale, design, impact on character and appearance were considered to be acceptable and that the proposed amendments to windows and doors would reduce neighbour perception of overlooking compared to the extant consent. The scale and form of the development had already been granted and the variation of conditions proposed minor material amendments to the previously approved windows, doors and external materials. The officer’s recommendation was to grant subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Mr Selby spoke in objection to the proposal on behalf of 7 neighbours. He referenced correspondence on file and stated that the existing dwelling was overbearing, overlooked other properties and impacted amenity. He considered the officer report misleading and suggested members should view the property for themselves. Mr Selby also expressed his disappointment regarding damage to the roads from large lorries, resulting in dust, dirt and sand covering the area and questioned who was responsible. He asserted that the proposal was inappropriate, referring to it as a monstrosity, and informed members that he had paid a sum to plant trees to mitigating overlooking. The windows were not an issue, but the cladding would be unacceptable. He urged members to refuse.

Mr Shenoy spoke in support of the proposal. He expressed his opinion that the development was a well-designed modern building which makes a positive addition to Corfe Mullen. Mr Shenoy noted the criticism received from other residents; however he considered that the development would be beneficial to the area. He hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation.

Ms McCormick spoke on behalf of Mr Mills, the owner, in his absence. Within his representation he noted other residents’ opinions, however, assured members that they weren’t developers, they were just hoping to create a family home within an area which they felt captivated by. The applicant hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation as the cladding would soften the appearance of the building. Mr Mills also responded to comments made by the town council within his representation by stating that the proposal was tucked away from view. He considered that it aligned with the NPPF and maintained the character of the area.

Cllr Sowry-House made a representation as the Local Ward Member. He was pleased to see local residents raising their concerns and attending committee. Cllr Sowry-House did not agree that the cladding proposed was appropriate for the site. He assured members that he did not have any concerns regarding windows, however, he hoped members would overturn the officer’s recommendation and refuse.

Members questions and comments

• Concerns regarding the scale of the proposal.
• Concerns regarding the colour of the proposed cladding.
• Clarification regarding the details of condition 2 to ensure that it was more in keeping with the area.
• Members noted the amendments were proposed by the applicant to reduce the visual impact, however, they noted the comments made by local residents and their concerns about the visual impact.
• Vegetation screening opportunities were considered to mitigate the impact on neighbouring properties.
• The development was considered to be prominent within the street scene.
• Cllr Toni Coombs proposed to grant the officers recommendation, Cllr David Morgan seconded the proposal; however, the motion fell at the vote.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to REFUSE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Spencer Flower, and seconded by Cllr Alex Brenton.

Decision: To refuse the officer’s recommendation for approval for the following reasons.

The proposed cladding of the first-floor extensions in a dark colour would amplify the visual impact of the enlarged building to the detriment of local visual amenity resulting in harm to the character of the area contrary to policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan: Part 1, Core Strategy.