Issue - meetings

Proposal Description: The proposed extension and refurbishment of an existing early 21st century, detached, four-bedroom dwelling with a detached double garage to include the demolition of existing extensions on all sides, the internal reconfiguration of the main dwelling, the addition of both single-storey extension and two-storey extensions and the addition of an annexe to the existing double garage.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding the following matters.

1.    Additional supporting comments received from neighbours at 5 Hillside supporting the plans.

2.    An update to condition 04: The annexe hereby permitted shall be occupied in association with the dwelling house or shall be used for the purposes ancillary to the dwelling house. At no time shall the annexe be occupied as an independent unit of accommodation or be used as tourist accommodation.

Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and to prevent the creation of inappropriate units of accommodation, possibly leading to over-intensive use of the site.

3.    Clarification that the existing dwelling was a 20th-century dwelling and not a 21st-century dwellings as stated.

In addition, the case officer advised that further comments had been received overnight objecting to the proposal.

During public participation, Steve Wallin spoke in objection to the application, Adam Knibb (Architect) spoke in support of the application and Councillor Eric Bodger, Curdridge Parish Council spoke against the application, specifically regarding the annexe and answered members' questions.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

1.    The committee voted against the recommendation to approve planning permission and instead voted to refuse permission for the proposal. In reaching this decision they raised the following material planning matters which weighed in favour of refusing planning permission:

2.    That due to the scale, positioning, and relationship with the neighbouring boundary, the annexe building had an adverse, overbearing impact on the residential amenity of No 6, Hillside and was therefore contrary to Policy DM17 of the Local Plan part two. The precise wording of this was to be delegated to the Principal Planning Officer Team Leader (South).