Agenda item

Proposed outbuilding for use as an annex (as amended by plan received 7 September 2023 re-siting the proposed annex and arboricultural information received 17 October 2023).

The committee considered planning application P23/S2067/HH for the proposed outbuilding for use as an annex (as amended by plan received 7 September 2023 re-siting the proposed annex and arboricultural information received 17 October 2023), on land at Oakdown, Chalkhouse Green Road, Kidmore End.  

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 Peter Dragonetti.

The planning officer informed the committee that the site comprised a detached two storey dwelling with a large garden and that it all sat within the Chilterns National Landscape. The application itself sought permission for the erection of an annex in the back garden. Amendments had been made during the course of the application taking into account the constraints of the trees on the site and so slightly relocated the annex.

The planning officer confirmed that the proposed annex would be subservient to the main dwelling and would be of an appropriate size and massing to its surroundings. She highlighted that the annex would visually appear as an outbuilding and have a maximum height of 3.7 metres. However, due to the low boundary treatment she had recommended a condition on the approval of the application for several rear windows to be obscure glazed and fixed shut.

The concerns from the parish council, about use of the building as a separate dwelling, were also raised but the planning officer confirmed to the committee that the application was for an annex and so should not be assessed against the council’s housing policies. She also emphasised that any use of the building apart from that described, such as for private renting, would require a separate permission.

As the proposal complied with Local Plan polices, was in keeping with existing site, was not out of character with the surrounding area, and was not harmful to neighbouring amenity due to its modest height, the planning officer recommended that the application be approved.

Sue Brigs spoke on behalf of Kidmore End Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

Councillor Peter Dragonetti, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee asked the planning officer about the total footprint of the annex, and she confirmed that it was approximately 54 square metres, and that it was an acceptable size for an annex. On a follow-up question about if the annex would meet the minimum standards for a one-bedroom house, the planning officer confirmed that it would, but that it was slightly under the requirements for a two-bedroom dwelling.

In response to members questions, the planning officer also confirmed that the annex would have a septic tank in the garden and that the agent had confirmed to her that the Electric Vehicle charging point would be used for an electric mobility scooter.

On a point of clarity about the dwelling being used as a separate single bedroom dwelling, the planning officer emphasised that the annex needed to be subservient to the main dwelling and that it could not be sold as an individual dwelling without needing a separate permission.

In response to a question about the obscure and fixed shut windows and if they could harm the amenity of the resident that would occupy the annex, the planning officer noted that compliance with building regulations was a separate issue, and from a planning perspective they were satisfied with the current scheme.

Some members believed that the development would constitute a significant development in a residential back garden and would negatively affect neighbouring amenity and be overbearing. They also noted that the floor space was large enough to be considered as a single bedroom property. A motion to refuse the application was put forward based on those concerns but as the committee agreed that the annex would not be unneighbourly or overbearing, it was not carried.

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was not carried on being put to the vote. 

Overall, the committee did not believe that the annex was overbearing or unneighbourly and they were also satisfied that, as the description of the development was for an annex, the applicant could not use the building for any other purposes such as putting it up for rent without being required to submit a separate planning permission. In addition, the committee agreed to add further conditions on the approval of the application requiring foul drainage for the development to be submitted and agreed and for requiring the approval of any external lighting in order to conserve the character of the area and protect the amenity of the neighbours.

For these reasons, the committee agreed that the application should be approved, 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 P23/S2067/HH, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement within three years

2. Development in accordance with the approved plans

3. Materials as on plan

4. Prevention of overlooking – rear windows obscure glazed and fixed shut

5. Tree Protection (General)

6. Foul drainage details required

7. No external lighting unless agreed with the Local Planning Authority