Agenda item

Proposed single storey front and two storey rear extension, plus construction of two side dormers within new roof and a balcony on the rear elevation.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site within the settlement boundary of Wareham and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the proposed elevations, floor and site plans were shown with the addition of views from the street scenes. Members were provided with details of the officer pre-application advice and were informed that the proposal before them had been amended. .  The Case Officer highlighted the objections which had been raised by Wareham Town Counciland third parties, noting comments that the asymmetric design was not in keeping with the area and if granted, would have set a precedence for overdevelopment.

The officer discussed the impacts on neighbouring amenity, referring to the assessment of impacts set out in the agenda report. The proposal would be visible from footpaths to the north and neighbouring allotment gardens; however, it was not considered that the changes would have any detrimental impacts nor warrant a reason for refusal. It created a modest design and included the proposal to erect a boundary fence to provide screening. The dormer window which would be evident for neighbouring properties, but no significant harm from overshadowing or overbearing impact had been identified. To support mitigation of overlooking neighbouring properties, members were referred to condition 5 in which obscure glazed windows were proposed. The Case Officer noted the need for conditioning the balcony screen and updated members on additional condition 8 which referred to the boundary fence.

The officer’s presentation included images of the existing parking arrangements. Members were informed that included in the proposal was to replace the existing sloped drive with level parking which would allow two off street parking spaces. The Highways Authority did not identify any harm to highway safety, and it was deemed acceptable. The officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions including:

8. Prior to the first use of the ground floor extensions hereby approved, a close board boundary fence to increase the overall height of boundary enclosure on the western boundary to 2m, from the point adjacent to the front elevation of no. 11A to the rear boundary, shall be erected and thereafter maintained.

Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity.

9. Within 1 month of garage being blocked up, the parking spaces shall be constructed and made available in accordance with plan 22150-00-17. Thereafter, these areas must be permanently maintained; kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site in the interest of highway safety.

Public Participation

A local resident spoke in objection to the proposal. He did not accept the planning officer’s report and felt as though they had ignored the reality of the site. Mr Farrant felt that if granted, the development would be severally intrusive to his neighbouring property and would not have been in keeping with the character of the area, nor would it reflect the street scene. Therefore, he urged the committee to overturn the officer recommendation and refuse planning permission.

Members questions and comments

• Questions regarding whether the proposal was one of or the narrowest plots in the road.
• The road had evolved with several houses undergone alterations.
• Clarification regarding the age of the property and those surrounding it. It was established that the existing dwelling was built in the 1970s
• Concerns regarding the overlooking of neighbours and the close proximity of the boundary wall. Cllr Ezzard felt that the proposal was an overdevelopment and spoilt the street scene.
• Queries regarding noise impacts from the balcony.
• Queries regarding the National Landscape.
• Clarification whether the balcony had been enclosed to prevent overlooking and whether it would benefit form a natural light source.
• Clarification as to whether the existing footprint had been doubled.
• Members noted the changes in building standards since the proposal was first built.
• Cllr Sowry-House felt that the existing property design was not typical for the road and was mindful of families looking to improve existing dwellings due to difficulty in moving. The proposal would improve the amenity of housing within the area. He was pleased to see that the dormer windows had been set back and felt that the applicant had done their best to keep the eaves height consistent.
• Members were mindful of the overbearing impacts on neighbouring properties; however, it was noted that the character of the area was ever changing and were pleased that officers had worked hard to mitigate the impacts.

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 APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended as well as additional conditions 8 and 9, was proposed by Cllr Duncan Sowry-House, and seconded by Cllr David Morgan.

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report as well as additional conditions 8 and 9.

Cllr Beryl Ezzard left the room and gave her apologies for the rest of the meeting.