Agenda item

Proposed demolition of existing garage and conservatory, part single, part two storey rear extension and alterations to the existing dwelling, subdivision and erection of new dwelling and alterations to the vehicular access and parking (amended plans received 15 April 2022 to reduce depth of rear extension, and to extend red line area to enable visibility splays for access).

The committee considered application P22/S0713/FUL for the proposed demolition of existing garage and conservatory, part single, part two storey rear extension and alterations to the existing dwelling, subdivision and erection of new dwelling and alterations to the vehicular access and parking (amended plans received 15 April 2022 to reduce depth of rear extension, and to extend red line area to enable visibility splays for access).

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.

The planning officer explained that the application was referred to the committee due to an objection from Wheatley Parish Council, due to concerns over the appearance of the area, car parking, highway safety, and the impact on the neighbouring property due to a loss of light. The planning officer then provided the background to the site, explaining that it was an ex-council estate from the 1950’s and had been brought to the committee due to an objection from Wheatley Parish Council over the character and appearance of the area, car parking and highway safety, and the impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of light. The planning officer then added that over time, most of the surrounding properties had taken two storey side extensions and in the view of officers, this had changed the character of the area.

Addressing the application site and the proposed development, the committee were told that the single storey extension to the rear of the site would not go beyond the depth of the existing conservatory. Additionally, the footprint of the application would extend northwards, but would not cause a harmful impact on neighbouring properties in relation to a loss of light. For the side facing windows, the committee were told the window would be obscured glazing so as to respect the privacy of neighbouring residents. The planning officer also confirmed that a condition was added that would remove permitted development rights which would protect any further impact on neighbouring amenity. As the benefit of the application was considered to outweigh the harm, the planning officer recommended the application for approval, subject to conditions.

Mark Flanagan, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. The committee asked the speaker for clarification on his verbal statement on whether preliminary work had begun at the application site. The speaker responded that the applicant had already split the garden and put a fence up, with work taking place up to around 10pm at night. An additional question from the committee was raised to the speaker to clarify their view on the extensions and whether they were in character with the area. The speaker answered that in their opinion, the character of the area would be harmed by the application, as it contrasted in appearance to existing buildings and other approved extensions.

Councillor Alexandrine Kantor, local ward member, spoke on the application.

The committee asked the planning officer how a semi-detached house would improve the area, to which the response was that other developments from approved applications in the area were used comparatively, and the planning officers considered the development to be an overall improvement compared to the existing arrangements. A second question was asked on how drainage would be managed to which the planning officer responded that a condition had been added to require details of drainage proposals, and also it was noted that the site was not within a critical drainage area, and no objections had been raised by the relevant officers.

The committee sought clarification on vehicle access and parking due to concerns on insufficient space for larger vehicles should the application be approved. The planning officer responded that whilst they recognised there was some existing issues with road usage in the area, it was compliant with the standards set by Oxfordshire County Council and therefore the committee needed to consider that an objection from road access issues would be difficult.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission to application P22/S0713/FUL due to the harm to the character of the area and amenities of the neighbour.