Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

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.