Agenda item

To determine a householder planning application from Mr & Mrs Taylor for loft conversion with rear dormer and rooflights to front.  Roof to be replaced with hip gable roof extensions.  Works to include: Installation of cedral cladding to gable ends of the property; lap wood effect in c62 violet blue.  Replacement of roof tiles from concrete rosemary to marley modern old english.  Cladding of existing dormer in anthracite grey zinc.

Speaking rights have been granted to:

·         Mr Duffy, neighbouring resident

·         Mr Johnson on behalf of the applicant

The Committee considered a report from the planning officers, together with an addendum circulated prior to the meeting, in relation to a full householder planning application from Mr & Mrs Taylor for a loft conversion with rear dormer and rooflights to front.  Roof to be replaced with hip gable roof extensions.  Works to include: installation of cedral cladding to gable ends of the property, lap wood effect in c62 violet blue, replacement of roof tiles from concrete rosemary to marley modern old English and cladding of existing dormer in anthracite grey zinc.

A planning officer presented details of the application with the aid of various maps, plans and photographs.

In accordance with the Committee’s Speaking Rights Scheme a neighbouring resident, Mr Peter Duffy, had been granted permission to speak to the Committee. Mr Duffy expressed dissatisfaction with the advice he had received regarding the limited issues to be considered by the Committee. He believed that the Council had not followed due process and he had been denied a right of appeal when the Authority had granted permission for the loft conversion. The application had incorrectly stated that the development was not visible from the highway. This retrospective application for an unauthorised dormer window had only been submitted when he and other residents had objected. He objected to the materials to be used and stated that the development would overlook neighbouring properties. He believed the applicant had shown a lack of respect and courtesy by continuing construction work during the application process. 

The applicant, Mr Taylor, addressed the Committee to respond to Mr Duffy’s  comments. Mr Taylor explained how he had acquired the property in June 2022 with the loft extension plans and a certificate of lawfulness already in place. He explained the reasons why the materials to be used could not match the existing materials and had to be changed. He accepted that these changes required planning permission. He regretted any upset caused to his neighbours but he stated that the materials were not out of keeping with the area and windows to the rear of the property already overlooked neighbouring properties.   

Members of the Committee were given the opportunity to ask questions of Mr Duffy, Mr Taylor and officers and to comment on the application. In doing so the Committee gave particular consideration to:

a)     the process applied in initially issuing a certificate of lawfulness and later requiring the applicant to seek planning permission because the materials used were not of similar appearance to the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse;

b)     the extent to which neighbouring residents were provided with advice on the processes applied; and

c)     the impact of the materials to be used on the character and appearance of the site and surroundings.

The Chair proposed acceptance of the planning officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote, 9 members of the Committee voted for the recommendation and none voted against.

Resolved that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the planning officers report.

(Reasons for decision: The Committee concluded that, having regard to the relevant policies contained in the Council’s Local Plan 2017 and National Planning Policy Framework, the proposed development was acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the site and surroundings.)