Agenda item

Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) and condition 4 (obscure glazing) on application P21/S0317/HH to comply with constructional details. (As amended by drawings accompanying email from agent received 5 July 2022 and application form received 26 April 2023 and amplified by information received 26 April 2023 and corrected by revised block and roof plan received 31 May 2023). (Extension and alterations to include raising the roof to create a full height first floor)

The committee considered planning application P22/S1554/HH for the variation of condition 2 (approved plans) and condition 4 (obscure glazing) on application P21/S0317/HH to comply with constructional details (as amended by drawings accompanying email from agent received 5 July 2022 and application form received 26 April 2023 and amplified by information received 26 April 2023 and corrected by revised block and roof plan received 31 May 2023) (extension and alterations to include raising the roof to create a full height first floor), on land at Apple Croft, Slade End, Brightwell-cum-Sotwell.  

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 introduced the report and highlighted that the application was called into the committee by the local ward member, Councillor Anne-Marie Simpson. Since the publication of the agenda, the planning officer also informed members that the council had received seven more objections from local residents.

On the application itself, the planning officer noted that it was for a variation of condition on a planning permission granted in 2021 for an extension to the dwelling. This permission was sought in order to regularise the current built form of the property. He also informed members that the primary variation to the approved plans involved raising the roof height, but also included changes to the obscure glazing.

The planning officer then emphasised to members that the starting point for assessing the application was between the permitted plans in the 2021 application and what was currently built, and if the difference between the two constituted sufficient harm for it to be refused.

Overall, as the planning officer believed that the variation on the original permission was acceptable as the changes to the original permission did not amount to material harm, he recommended that the application be approved.

Celia Collett spoke on behalf of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

Rolfe Edwards, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  

Councillor Anne-Marie Simpson and Ben Manning, local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the discussion of the application at the committee meeting.

Members asked about one of the objection letters which questioned the legality of the process the applicant was taking with the application. However, the planning officer clarified that the application before the committee was to regularise the work done on site and confirmed that the process the applicant took was the appropriate one. 

On the existing first floor windows on site, members inquired into if they were higher or lower than they were indicated as being in the proposed plans, and they were satisfied with the planning officers’ response that they were of a comparable height to what was approved. The planning officer also noted that the front windows looked out over a public highway which was not unusual and would not be harmful to neighbouring amenity.

On a question about landscaping, the planning officer noted that a proposed condition for the approval of the application would secure additional planting that would be required to be undertaken within six months of approval and this also satisfied members.

In response to a question about the lack of timber cladding to the front of building, which was shown in the originally approved application, the planning officer confirmed that this was not required and so the applicant had not chosen to include it in the current application.

As there was discussion around the accuracy of the plans presented to the committee, and if they were verified by the council, the development manager confirmed that the fundamental key dimensions of the dwelling were measured during the council’s enforcement investigation into the site and were accurately reflected by the plans in the officer’s report, including the position of the windows. The development manager also discussed the process that the enforcement team took, informing the committee that when they identified a difference between a site and the approved plans, they advised the applicant to stop work in order to assess it. When an applicant put in an application to regularise the existing situation, some applicants continued to build, which was the case with the application site before the committee. However, the development manager stressed that the committee’s decision was to see if the existing building caused harm above the approved plans.

Members also asked about the bedroom windows potentially overlooking the neighbours, but the planning officer clarified that the obscuring glazing was not required for these specific windows.

Overall, as the committee was satisfied with the planning officers’ response to its questions, that the height of the roof complied with Local Plan policies, and that if the current plans were presented with the previous application on the site that it would be approved, and members could see no material planning reasons to refuse the application. Therefore, the committee agreed to approve the application subject to conditions.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P22/S1554/HH, subject to the following conditions:

1. Approved plans

2. Landscaping Scheme – within 6 months

3. Obscure glazing