Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

The local Member for Caerwent, also a Planning Committee Member, informed the Committee that locally, there is concern regarding the length of the extension.

 

Councillor M. John, representing Caerwent Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The Community Council objects to the application under Policy H6 – the extension of rural dwellings.

 

·         In order to protect the character of the countryside, extensions to dwellings outside village boundaries should be modest and respect or enhance the appearance of the existing dwelling. They will be required to be subordinate to the existing building.  Where the building is of a traditional nature to respect its existing form including the pattern and shape of openings and materials.

 

·         The Community Council does not consider that this application fulfils the requirements of Policy H6.

 

·         Any extension that will result in an increase of more than 50% in the volume of a rural dwelling will not normally be considered to comply with Policy H6.

 

·         The Community Council considers that this property has merit and should be considered as traditional rural dwellings particular to the local environment. They are a characteristic and unusual feature of the locality. The dwellings are similar to foresters’ cottages which are located nearby.

 

·         Under permitted development rights, this extension would not be allowed as it currently stands.

 

·         The Community Council knows that permitted development rules do not preclude a planning application but consider that they provide a point of reference when considering applications.

 

·         None of the land settlement houses in the near and extended neighbourhood have extensions on their front elevations.  Some have been extended sideways. Some of these houses have porches which are subordinate and are mainly in keeping with the original buildings.

 

·         It is difficult to understand how this extension can be described as subordinate.  The view of the proposed extension driving out of the village from the A48 differs to the photographs shown from another viewpoint.

 

·         The Community Council has concerns regarding the volume of the proposed development and the increase in the volume of the cottage from its original state. An increase of 61% since 2013.

 

·         The Community Council has recommended that the application be refused.

 

Mr. S. Roderick, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         Design and impact on the local character, paragraphs b, c, e and g of Policy DES1 apply.

 

·         The extension is very large at the front of the property running adjacent to his boundary.  It is not a porch. It extends 4 metres from the front elevation, is over half the height of the main dwelling and is nearly 4 metres wide.

 

·         It will be nearly 16 times larger than a wooden porch and it can be seen from the village.  It is substantially bigger than extensions of nearby neighbours and similar land settlement dwellings.

 

·         Not one extension exceeds more than a metre from the front elevation and all are no more than 3sq.m in footprint. These extensions respect local distinctiveness, compliment their surroundings and respect their history.  This application does not.

 

·         The proposed extension is unacceptably oversized and does not enhance any architectural aspect and fails to follow the aesthetic lines of the original dwelling.

 

·         It doesn’t adhere to the local vernacular, it harms the objector’s immediate landscape and the larger surrounding area.

 

·         Policy EP1 states extensions to existing buildings should have regard to privacy, amenity and health of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

 

·         Policy DES1 paragraph d, the equalities legislation and TAN 12 apply.

 

·         The objector’s property lies within green belt open countryside. Land Map rates the visual and sensory landscape as high and exceptional and emphasises the importance of the open undulating Caerwent landscape.

 

·         This amenity provides a sense of openness and freedom allowing for a positive state of mental health and wellbeing. The objector has benefitted from this for the previous 13 years.

 

·         The extension will have a detrimental impact and affect the sense of wellbeing.

 

·         On leaving his property the objector will be presented with a 4 metre high wall reducing amenity at the front of the property by almost 50%. In the autumn and winter months this loss will be exacerbated. The loss of amenity will be amplified for the objector’s wife as she relies on the use of a wheelchair. The wall will be oppressive for her lowering the quality of life that she currently enjoys.

 

·         In making the decision to recommend approval of the application the Planning Department was required to undertake an impact assessment of the effect on people’s protected characteristics. It was considered that this had been ignored.

 

·         Policy H6 and strategic vision – all parties agree that the proposal added to the extension of 2013 would exceed the volume limit between 61% to 71%.  The 50% limit would be exceeded.

 

·         Policy H6 requires an extension to be modest. The guidance provides a clear definition for this concept. A new extension was deemed to be modest if it does not exceed 30% volume of the original dwelling. However, this could be adjusted up to 37% but it must not exceed 50%. If an extension is built after 2006 it is unlikely that another extension can be permitted unless the new works added to those carried out earlier fall within the size limit, no more than 50%.

 

·         Approval of the application would undermine the Local Development Plan (LDP) strategy.

 

·         The objector asked that the Planning Committee considers refusal of the application.

 

Richard Shuck, the applicants’ representative, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The applicants have lived in the area for a number of years and appreciate the landscape that they live in.

 

·         The garden is agricultural / rural in nature with overgrown grass and various plant life.

 

·         Discussions had been held with the neighbour regarding the location of the extension and it had been recommended by the applicants’ representative that the extension be put at the front of the property with a view to addressing the issues raised by the neighbouring party.

 

·         The proposed extension is 1 metre from the boundary to limit, as much as possible, the loss of light in that area.

 

·         The applicants wanted the extension to be the same size as was originally proposed on the rear of the property under permitted development rights.

 

·         The proposed extension is in keeping with the existing property with a slate look, composite tile on the roof with a rendered finish.

 

·         The plot size is large enough to take another small extension to the front of the property and acknowledges that it does exceed the limits of the 50% volume. However, in this case it was considered to be acceptable.

 

·         The properties in this area have a small footprint. Therefore, it is necessary for families to increase the size of the footprint for these properties.

 

·         The applicants require more living space via the proposed extension to accommodate an additional member of their family.

 

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

 

·         A single storey extension to the rear of the property should not cover more than half the area around the original house.  The eaves height of the extension cannot be higher than the eaves height of that of the house from which the extension projects.  If the extension is located within 2 metres of any boundary of a house the eaves height cannot exceed 3 metres and the extension cannot be more than 4 metres long projecting from the rear of the property measured from the rear wall of the original house.  The extension cannot be more than 4 metres in total in height.

 

·         If the applicants extended their property to the rear and remained within these limitations then planning permission would not be required as the development could be constructed under permitted development rights.

 

·         The proposed extension has been designed in a manner with its roof that reduces its impact on shading.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the visual aspect of the proposed extension as it would change the vernacular of the neighbouring property.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor Dale Rooke and seconded by County Councillor Tony Easson that we be minded to refuse application DM/2022/00696 on the following grounds and that the application be re-presented to a future meeting of Planning Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal:

 

·         Adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property.

·         Location, scale and design would be incongruous and out of character.

·         Non-compliance with Policy H6 (volume and harmful to the character of the dwelling).

 

Upon being put to the vote the following votes were recorded:

 

For refusal                   -           10

Against refusal            -           2

Abstentions                 -           1

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that we be minded to refuse application DM/2022/00696 on the following grounds and that the application be re-presented to a future meeting of Planning Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal:

 

·         Adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property.

·         Location, scale and design would be incongruous and out of character.

·         Non-compliance with Policy H6 (volume and harmful to the character of the dwelling).