Agenda item

Conversion of existing garage into ancillary accommodation strictly for the use of the main dwellinghouse.

(Amended plan received 3rd July 2024 removing one first floor rooflight).

At this point in the meeting, Councillor Peter Dragonetti declared an interest in the application as he was close associates with an objector to the application. For this reason, he left the room when the item was discussed.

The committee considered planning application P24/S1731/HH for the conversion of existing garage into ancillary accommodation strictly for the use of the main dwellinghouse (amended plan received 3 July 2024 removing one first floor rooflight), on land at 5 Esther Carling Lane, Rotherfield Peppard.  

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 James Norman, and due to the objection of Rotherfield Peppard Parish Council. 

The planning officer informed the committee that the application was for the conversion of a garage into ancillary living accommodation. Permission was sought to brick in the garage doors, with windows to the front and side, and he noted that permission was not needed for internal works. The planning officer highlighted that there would be no changes to the form of the garage and that it would continue to be visually subservient to the main dwelling, with space in the driveway that exceeded requirements.

The planning officer indicated that the front windows would be more than 10 metres from the nearest dwellings to the south and the roof light would be near 15 metres to the nearest neighbouring garden. As these distances were acceptable, and as the planning officer considered that the proposed changes to the structure would also be acceptable, he recommended that the application be approved.

Graham Broadhurst spoke objecting to the application. 

Simon Bower, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

The committee enquired into the elevations of the design and the planning officer confirmed that the proposal was over two floors. On a question about the distance between the development and the nearest dwellings, the planning officer believed that it was a sufficient distance away and was still subservient to the main house through which it would be connected by the garden. The planning officer also clarified that, although the proposed ancillary dwelling was detached from the main dwelling, it was semi-detached to the neighbour’s garage and that as long as it remained occupied by a family member it would be considered ancillary to the main dwelling.

Members discussed the impact on the character and appearance of the area that would result from the proposed development, and it was agreed that the proposal fundamentally changed the nature of the area through the garages conversion into a dwelling. The main issues identified by the committee included the bricking up of the garage door and the inclusion of windows on that elevation, and that these changes would result in a building fundamentally out of character with the area. In addition, despite being ancillary, members were concerned about the distance of the proposed development from the main property and that they believed this would result in it looking like a separate dwelling.

The covenant on the site was discussed but members accepted that this was not a material planning consideration.

The committee had regard to the semi-detached nature of the garage and the established character of the area, noting that no other garage conversions had been done on the estate. As the proposal would be out of keeping with the established character of the lane, the committee agreed to refuse the application.

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

RESOLVED: to refuse planning application P24/S1731/HH, for the following reasons:

The District Council considers that the extent of works to the existing building, which is separated from the main dwelling, would be tantamount to the creation of an independent unit of accommodation. The change to the function of the building and the external works creating new window openings on the front and side elevations, would result in a development fundamentally out of keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies DES1 and DES2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035.