Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee was asked to consider application 6/2021/0048 for the erection of ground floor entrance porch, bay window extensions at ground and first floor levels, and Juliette balcony at second floor to front (north) elevation; the conversion and extension of an existing outbuilding to rear (south) for habitable accommodation with connecting glazed link from first floor level of house; and alterations to windows and doors at 1 Old Coastguard Cottages, Peveril Point Road, Swanage

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were; how these were to be progressed; and what this entailed. The presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed design – appearance, elevations and dimensions - but what effect it would have on residential amenity and the character the area, including the Dorset AONB and the Swanage Conservation Area and taking into account the policies against which this application was being assessed. The officer provided for an update which confirmed an additional condition: “in the first instance and in all subsequent occasions, the ground and first floor bay windows shall be separated by white panels to match the existing dwelling”. The reason for this was in the interests of visual amenity in the Conservation area.

 

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location and appearance of the development, its design and dimensions, how it would look; the materials to be used; environmental considerations; and its setting within that part of Swanage and the wider landscape - including the Dorset AONB and from Swanage Bay.

 

The proposal was to make alterations to the north (front) elevation of the house to form a bay window extension at ground and first floor, an entrance porch adjacent to the bay window, and a Juliette balcony on the second floor. On the western (side) elevation, the proposal was to add windows and rooflights to improve internal lighting. To the south (rear), it was proposed to replace a mono-pitch roof with a pitched roof convert and extend the existing outbuilding to form an additional bedroom with en-suite. To achieve this, the ground behind the existing building would be excavated to the level of the outbuilding floor, with retaining walls constructed to hold the adjoining ground. A glass link would be installed between the outbuilding and the house, connecting on the first-floor rear elevation of the dwelling.

 

Officers showed the development’s relationship with other adjacent residential

development and how the extension was designed to be in keeping with the

characteristics of the established local environment, as far as possible. The characteristics and topography of the site was shown and its relationship with the row of cottages. Views around it were shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

 

In summary, officers planning assessment adjudged that the overall design of

the development was considered to be largely acceptable, with all,

significant, planning matters having been appropriately, or adequately,

addressed. Whilst in a sensitive environmental area, having assessed the material considerations, being seen to be acceptable and sufficiently compliant with national and local planning, the recommendation being made by officers was for Committee to approve the application.

 

The Committee were notified of written submissions and officers read these direct to the Committee – being appended to these minutes. Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one could be addressed by the provisions of the application.

 

Councillor Bill Trite, took the opportunity to address the Committee - solely in his capacity as one of the two local Ward Members - objecting to the proposal on the grounds it would adversely impact the Dorset ANOB and the Swanage Conservation Area; that there would be inadequate parking provision; that there was a need to conserve and enhance what was currently there and; that the bay window was obtrusive and the porch and glass corridor were out of keeping and rainfall on the glass would cause a nuisance. He urged the Committee to refuse the application on this basis.

 

Formal consultation had seen an objection from Swanage Town Council on the grounds that the modern design out of keeping with the character and appearance of surrounding properties and its Conservation Area and AONB setting, the bay window was obtrusive and the porch was contrary to the appearance of terrace, and the glass walkway was out of keeping, leading to overlooking and other adverse effects. However, they concluded that there would be no objection as long as proposals were seen to be more in keeping with character of area and Conservation Area.

 

The opportunity was then given for members to ask questions of the

presentation and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of aspects so

as to have a better understanding in coming to a decision. Some important points raised, and about which they considered still required clarification, were :-

·        the dimensions of the bay windows and how its appearance would sit with there rest of the terrace

·        that although the symmetry of the terrace would be somewhat compromised, would this be of any consequent significance

·        how rainwater and surface water could be effectively displaced without resulting in nuisance

·        an assurance that the glazed walkway services access didn’t interfere with head height or intrusion and could the glass be obscured

·        what overlooking and compromise to privacy there might be

·        how stability of the ground would be assured and the means of doing this

·        what consideration had been given to the viability of holiday homes in this context.

 

Officers addressed the questions raised - and clarification needed - providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers, which the Committee saw as generally acceptable.

 

Of importance was that officers were confident the conditions covering the development would satisfactorily address all of the issues raised, with their assessment being based on that and building regulations would provide for an assurance that those issues governed by that code could be readily addressed.

 

From debate the majority of Members considered the development to be reasonable and acceptable and noted that all building tended to evolve over time to suit a particular purpose. What was being proposed here seemed to remain reasonably true to the character of the terrace and how it was being done was considered satisfactory. The innovative design afforded use of the cottage for a family and the alterations being proposed were considered acceptable in that context. This seemed to be a measured and proportionate extension that would improve the capacity and living conditions at No.1.

 

However, other Members had reservations, particularly to what was being proposed at the rear and that the general appearance of the terrace would be compromised by what was being proposed.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an

understanding of all this entailed; having taken into account the officer’s report

and presentation; the written representations; and what they had heard at the

meeting, in being proposed by Councillor Shane Bartlett and seconded by

Councillor Robin Cook, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed - by

7:1, with one abstention from Cllr Julie Robinson - to be minded to grant permission, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 17 of the officer’s report and the update provided in the presentation, with the enactment of their minded to decision being made by the Head of Planning.

 

Resolved

1)That permission be minded to be granted, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 17 of the officer’s report and in the update provided in the presentation with the enactment of their minded to decision being made by the Head of Planning.

2)That having taken into consideration the Committee’s ‘minded to’ decision, the

delegation to the Head of Planning to be authorised to grant permission be enacted.

 

 

 

Reasons for Decision

·        Para 11d of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) set out that permission should be granted for sustainable development unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate otherwise, or the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

·        The location was considered to be sustainable and the proposal was acceptable in its design, general visual impact, and impact on Swanage Conservation Area.

·        There was not considered to be any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity.

·        There were no material considerations which would warrant refusal of this application.