Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’

Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Chairman moved the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application as set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Bamford.

Councillor Keyes, having called-in the application, said that he did not agree with the Officer’s recommendation. He felt that the dormer windows added character, that the detached building was not significant enough to be a separate dwelling and was within the curtilage of the building on a plot large enough to contain both the main dwelling and detached building. He proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, and this was seconded by Councillor White.

Councillor Jarvis echoed these views as architecturally he felt the dormer windows complimented  the look and feel of the building and therefore was not grounds for refusal. 

In response to a query regarding site history the Specialist: Development Management confirmed that whilst the reference on page 19 was incorrect the site history itself was correct. 

The Chairman put the first proposal on the table to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken the application was refused.

The Chairman then addressed the proposal from Councillor Keyes to approve the application.  The Lead Specialist Place suggested the usual conditions would apply around plans and materials, with obscure glazing for the dormer windows given that floor was for storage and by so doing would also protect the amenity, and finally, that the outbuilding be used as ancillary to the main dwelling.

A discussion ensued regarding the need or not for obscure glazing of the dormer windows. Councillor Keyes agreed with all the aforementioned conditions with the exception of the obscure glazing. He pointed out that the windows did not overlook neighbouring properties therefore they were not detrimental to the neighbouring amenity. This was echoed by Councillor Siddall.

At this point Councillor Bamford proposed an amendment to the second proposal to include obscure glazing of the dormer windows in the conditions. She said that the development should be restricted from use as an annexe as the original application was for storage purposes therefore obscure glazing was appropriate. This was seconded.

The Chairman put the amendment to include obscure glazing as a condition to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken this was refused.

The Chairman then addressed the substantive proposal from Councillor Keyes and  requested reasons for  approval.  Councillor Keys said it was not detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and that from all directions the main dwelling was the focus,  not the outbuilding. The Lead Specialist Place summarised the reasons put forward by Councillor Keyes:- that the development would not have a strong visual impact on the character of the surrounding area, there were limited views in the public realm, therefore the alterations of the provision of dormer windows would not have such a detrimental impact as to warrant refusal.

The Chairman put Councillor Keyes proposal to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the reasons already outlined and subject to the conditions delegated to Officers, to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken the application was approved.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions  delegated to Officers to agree in consultation with the Chairman.   

Councillor Jarvis left the meeting for this item of business- Agenda Item 6. 19/01207/OUT – Land Adjacent 2 Grange Road, Wickham Bishops.