Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

Consideration was given to planning application 6/2019/0337 for the erection of a single storey, rear extension at Misty Cottage, Worth Matravers. Members understanding of the proposal had benefited from a site visit – held two days previously – providing them with the opportunity to be able to see at first hand what the application entailed.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation and taking into consideration the provisions of the Update Sheet appended to these minutes, officers described what the main proposal and planning issues were, what these entailed and how this was proposed to be delivered. As responses received to the formal consultation from Worth Matravers Parish Council were contrary to the officer’s recommendation, the application was being referred to Committee for decision. The application was designed to benefit what living space there was available to the occupants so as to enhance their quality of life and enjoyment of their home.

 

The application sought to construct a single storey extension with flat roof construction, incorporating sky lights, on the rear elevation of Misty Cottage. Plans, photographs and graphics provided an illustration of the location, dimensions and design of the extension, the materials to be used; how the extension would look and its setting; and showed the development’s relationship with the characteristics of the neighbouring property, Rose Cottage – a Grade II Listed Building - as well as the surrounding village development and landscape. Officers also explained the context of the development in relation to the characteristics of the Worth Matravers Conservation Area and the relationship between the development and the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), in which it was located. Officers confirmed that there were other flat rooved constructions situated within the Conservation Area.

 

Assessments had been made by officers - having taken into account the views of the Design and Conservation Officer and the AONB Officer - on what impact the extension would have, with it being concluded that the proposed development was not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, the wider views within the Conservation Area or the Dorset AONB, the setting of listed buildings, or the amenity of the neighbouring residents. Concerns that excess light pollution emanating from the sky lights would compromise the dark skies policy of the AONB were allayed by the AONB Officer. Therefore, officers considered the proposal to be acceptable and the recommendation was being made on that basis.

 

Moreover, the officer emphasised that regardless of whether permission was granted for this application, an extension of similar dimensions – being less by only some 1.5 metres at its eastern end and not contiguous with the present extension at its western end - could still be constructed under permitted development. However, if this was the case, this could well differ significantly in appearance – being able to be glazed from top to bottom if desired - from what was being proposed so, in accepting the recommendation, the Committee would have a guarantee of its appearance and what conditions governed its construction. For illustrative purposes and to give a clearer understanding, comparisons between the two options were shown.

 

Following the formal consultation process, Worth Matravers Parish Council had objected to the proposals considering that the extension did not complement or enhance either the setting of the two adjacent listed

buildings nor the wider historic and positive characteristics of the village and was not in accordance with the Worth Matravers Conservation Area Appraisal. Particularly, concerns were raised regarding the size and design of the proposal in terms of the surroundings, light pollution emanating from the sky lights, the impact upon nearby properties, views from Worth Green, and the impact upon the Worth Matravers Conservation Area.

 

The Committee then heard from public speakers. Stephan Grant, owner of Rose Cottage, objected to what was being proposed on the grounds that it would compromise the character of the Conservation Area at the heart of the village. The proposed flat roof, with excess light emanating, would be incongruous and conspicuous by design, amongst the other dwelling’s pitched roofs. He felt that the dimensions and design were out of keeping with other small cottages around and being constructed in such close proximity to Rose Cottage would give the impression of being dominant and overbearing, in adversely affecting amenity.

 

Arnold Ward, for Naomi Grant, considered that the proposal could well be seen to constitute harm to a designated heritage asset, despite officers’ claims. He considered that the basis for the proposal could warrant legal challenge in not having due regard for the heritage assets within the Conservation Area in accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Moreover, his view was that the undoubted light pollution from the development was contrary to the AONB’s dark skies policy.

 

John Whiteoak, the applicant, explained how the proposal would be of benefit to the occupants of Misty Cottage in creating greater capacity within the house and a better environment in which to live for them. Whilst being aware of what they were able to do under permitted development, they had made a decision to apply for permission so as to ensure that what they were doing was in accordance with all that was necessary: in having the most appropriate extension for their house. In working closely with Council officers, they had given a lot of thought to ensure the design of their extension was in keeping with its surroundings and enhanced the setting within the Conservation Area. Moreover, they confirmed that the AONB officer had considered the up lighting proposed would not compromise the dark skies policy. On that basis, Mr Whiteoak asked the Committee to approve the application.

 

Committee debate focused on three main aspects of the application: the dimensions and proximity to Rose Cottage of the extension; its flat roofing construction and; how the sky lights could affect the dark skies policy.

 

Whilst accepting that the views of the AONB Officer were that there would be no breach of the dark skies policy, members were not necessarily convinced by this, considering that it was more than likely that the emittance of unfettered upward light was bound to have some impact on this.

 

They expressed concern that as there was no other flat roofed construction that was visible within that part of the Conservation Area, this was out of charachter with other dwellings and this would be conspicuous from wider views, especially looking westwards across the village from the duck pond, a particularly popular and picturesque view in their opinion.

 

Having heard the testament of the occupants of Rose Cottage and understood for themselves at the site visit how the extension would look, members were particularly concerned at how this might well be seen to be overbearing and dominant in that context, especially as Rose Cottage was sited at a lower level to Misty Cottage.

 

The majority of members were of the view that a decrease in extension length of 1.5 metres, as would be prescribed by permitted development, would be a more readily acceptable proposal, in avoiding the perceived dominance of the building to Mr and Mrs Grant. Whilst members recognised that there were limitations under permitted development in that any extension could not be contiguous with the already established dwelling, there was scope for this to be addressed via a future application.

 

Whilst the local Ward member, Councillor Cherry Brooks, was acceptant of the principle of an extension, she had reservations at the flat roofed design, preferring to see there being a slight pitch to it. She considered that what was being proposed did not outweigh the need for the building to be in keeping with others in the Conservation Area. 

 

The view of another member however was that, given there were other flat roofed buildings in Worth Matravers and that the AONB Officer raised no concerns over the effect of lighting, the application should be approved as, by doing this there was a guarantee over how it would look whereas, under permitted development, it may have a very different appearance that was less conducive with its setting. 

 

Notwithstanding the assessment made by officer’s in coming to their

recommendation, and whilst accepting the principle of an extension which could be allowed under permitted development, the majority of members were of the view that the overbearing and dominant appearance of the extension being proposed - with its flat roof construction incorporating sky lights that would undoubtedly emit excess light - would be detrimental to the setting of Rose Cottage, would be out of keeping with other buildings in the Conservation Area and might well compromise the AONB’s dark skies policy.

 

Furthermore, in the event that an extension should be allowed under permitted development, then members asked that this be conditional on it being built of Purbeck Stone and the pointing and coursing be of a nature that accorded with that found elsewhere on Misty Cottage. Members also asked that clarification be provided on what precisely the AONB’s dark skies policy entailed and how it was applied.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application, having

understood what was being proposed and the reasoning for this; having taken

into account the officer’s report, what they had heard at the meeting from the

case officer, legal advisor and those invited speakers - particularly the views

of the Parish Council and local ward Member - the Committee were satisfied

in their understanding of what all of this entailed. On being put to the vote the

Committee considered that, notwithstanding the assessments made by

officers, they could not agree to what was being recommended on the grounds of the adverse and detrimental impact this would have on the amenity of the neighbouring property of Rose Cottage; the inclusion of flat roofing in such a prominent position within the village landscape, and the potential for the AONB’s dark skies policy to be compromised by virtue of excess light pollution emitting from the skylights. Accordingly, it was agreed

 

Resolved

That planning application 6/2019/0337 be refused.

 

Reasons for decision

1) The proposal by reason of location and proximity to Rose Cottage would

result an overbearing impact upon neighbours at Rose Cottage to the

detriment to the setting of the Grade II listed building where no public benefits

would result. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies D (Design) and LHH

(Landscape Historic Environment and Heritage) of the adopted Purbeck Local

Plan Part 1 and the aims and objectives of the NPPF especially Paragraphs

193, 194 and 196.

2)The proposal by reason of the design and form of the flat roof of the

Extension would result in harm to the designated heritage asset and the

character and appearance of the Conservation Area where no public benefits

would result. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies D (Design) and LHH

(Landscape Historic Environment and Heritage) of the adopted Purbeck Local

Plan Part 1 and the aims and objectives of the NPPF especially Paragraphs

193, 194 and 196.

3)There was no street lighting within the village and the Worth Matravers

Conservation Area Appraisal details that where lighting occurs it was low key.

The site was located within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

(AONB) where the Dorset AONB Management Plan (C4 and f) required that

there is a requirement to avoid creating new features which are detrimental to

landscape character, tranquillity and the AONB's special qualities, and avoid

and reduce cumulative effects that eroded landscape character and quality. 

The proposal included 8 roof lights located in the flat roof of the extension.

These roof lights would adversely affect the character of the village and

harmfully impact upon the dark skies in the AONB. As such the proposal was

contrary to Policy D (Design) of the Purbeck Local Plan (Part 1), Paragraph

180 c) of the NPPF, the Dorset AONB Management Plan 2019 - 2024 and

guidance contained within the Planning Practice Guidance on light pollution.

4)Informative Note - Refused Plans. The plans that were considered by the

Council in making this decision are: drawing number 17184.20, drawing

number 17184.24, drawing number 17184.25, drawing number 17184.22,

drawing number 17184.23, drawing number 17184.26, drawing number

17184.27 and drawing number 17184.21 submitted as part of the application,

plus drawing number 17184.31 A, drawing number 17184.28 B and drawing

number 17184.32 A received on 22 August 2019, plus drawing number

17184.30 B, drawing number 17184.29 A and drawing number 17184.33 B

received on 29 August 2019. 

5)Statement of positive and proactive working: In accordance with paragraphs

38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council takes a positive

and creative approach to development proposals focused on solutions.  The

Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating

applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their

application and where possible suggesting solutions. For this application: The

applicant / agent and the Council have worked together to consider all

matters. The application was recommended for approval by officers. However,

elected Members resolved to refuse the application.

6)Informative Note - Community Infrastructure Levy. If planning permission is

subsequently granted for this development at appeal, it will be subject to the

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) introduced by the Town and Country

Planning Act 2008. A CIL liability notice will then be issued by the Council that

requires a financial payment, full details of which will be explained in the

notice.