To consider a report by the Head of Planning.
Minutes:
The Committee considered application P/HOU/2021/02711 for the construction of replacement porch at 1 Hillside, Affpuddle, Dorset.
With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers showed what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were. The presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed design, but what effect it would have on residential amenity and the character the area, taking into account the policies against which this application was being assessed.
Plans and photographs showed the appearance of the development and its dimensions; its setting within that part of Affpuddle and the development’s relationship with other adjacent residential development and their characteristics.
The
officer’s assessment was based on the provisions of Para 11d of the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and, particularly, on the view of the
Conservation Officer in that, whilst there was no objection to the principle of
a replacement porch, the proposed design had a dominating affect due to its
increased height, width, solidity and roof form which was considered to cause
less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Piddle Valley
Conservation Area.
In summary, the officer’s assessment
considered that the proposed porch - due
to its size, design and visually prominent position - failed to positively
integrate with its surroundings and was contrary to the statutory requirement
to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing Conservation Areas,
resulting in less than substantial harm to the heritage asset which was not
outweighed by any public benefit.
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.
Formal consultation had seen support for the application from Affpuddle Parish Council and one of the two Ward members, Councillor Peter Wharf.
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. Officers addressed the questions raised – and what clarification
was needed - providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers.
Whilst understanding how the officer’s
assessment had been made, the Committee did not consider that the application
would cause less than substantial harm. Indeed, they considered that there
would be no harm as it could be seen as an enhancement to the street scene and
would be a considerable improvement on what was currently there. Moreover, both
Affpuddle Parish Council and one of the two local
members supported it too. Members asked that, if at all practicable, the porch’s
appearance be as complementary as it could be with that of its semi-detached
neighbour and that appropriate glazing be considered, as necessary.
On that basis and having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of this; 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 Alex Brenton and seconded by Councillor Shane Bartlett, in being put to the vote it was agreed, unanimously – on a ‘minded to’ basis - that the application should be approved.
The Head of Planning, having considered the representations and the officer’s presentation and having taken into account the views of the committee, made the following decision under delegated authority.
Decision of the Head of Planning: That the
application be approved on the basis that it was ajudged
that the proposed front extension would improve the visual appearance of the
existing dwelling which was sited within a row of modern dwellings with varying
form. The proposal was modest development within the countryside in
accordance with policy CO and its impact within the streetscene
would be limited by its position set back from the highway and screening by
intervening boundary enclosure and vegetation. The proposal did not impact on
the setting of River Cottage, a Grade II listed building and was not found to
result in harm to the Conservation Area. It was therefore judged to accord with
policies D and LHH of the Purbeck Local Plan Part 1, Chapter 16 of the NPPF and
the statutory requirement of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or
enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.
Supporting documents: