Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) to create habitable accommodation in the roofspace with dormer and gable windows as well as rooflights to planning permission 23/P/00694 approved 14/11/23 for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and erection of two detached dwellings.

Prior to the consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·        Professor Emily Ellwood (to object);

·        Ms Helen Treharne (to object) and;

·        Mr James Deverill (Agent) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  No changes were proposed to the layout of the properties from the approved scheme.  The changes proposed were just alterations to the roof area and would not increase the size of the approved dwellings.  Concerns had been raised regarding the potential for overlooking from the dormer windows, particularly towards the rear.  However, condition 17 restricted the openings of the rear dormer window to be obscurely glazed.  The proposal would also increase the occupation of the site and as a result there would be an effect upon the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  However, officers were satisfied that the proposal would not materially affect or harm the appearance of the approved dwellings in the streetscene nor impact the residential amenities any more than the approved extant permission.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

The Committee discussed the application and wished to receive clarification on whether the proposed additional rooms could be allowed under permitted development.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there was condition on the original permission regarding restricting the windows which was why they had to submit an application in this regard.  However, ordinarily such windows could be granted by permitted development.  The obscured glazing could only be removed by way of application.

The Committee noted concerns raised that the application represented planning creep.  The Committee also noted clarification from planning officers that if permitted development rights were removed it did not mean that a development proposal was unacceptable.  It just meant that an application had to be submitted.  Disregarding the fact that a second application had been submitted in close succession, the application still had to be considered according to its own merits.

The Committee noted further comments that the proposal fitted in relatively well in comparison to the emerging trend for this style of development in Omer Road.

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken consideration of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee;

RESOLVED to approve application 23/P/02046 subject to a Section 106 Agreement securing the appropriate additional financial contributions to mitigate the impact of the proposals on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.