Agenda item

Ward

 

Ashford Town

 

Proposal

 

Variation of Condition 3 (Approved Plans) relating to planning permission 24/01542/FUL for roof alterations and extensions to create habitable roof space, with insertion of 1 no. front facing dormer and 1 no. rear facing dormer, erection of a single storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. Change to fenestration and extension of dropped kerb. All to facilitate the subdivision of the property into 2 no. flats (1 no. 2 bed and 1 no. 3 bed) with associated parking and amenity space. Changes to single storey side extension to reduce set in from boundary (retrospective).

 

Recommendation

 

Approve the application subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 8 (Recommendation) of the Report.

Description:

 

Variation to Condition 3 (Approved Plans) relating to planning permission 24/01542/FUL for roof alterations and extensions to create habitable roof space, with insertion of 1 no. front facing dormer and 1 no. rear facing dormer, erection of single storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. Changes to fenestration and extension of dropped kerb. All to facilitate the subdivision of the property into 2 no. flats (1 no. 2 bed and 1 no. 3 bed) with associated parking and amenity space.

 

Changes to single storey side extension to reduce set in from boundary (retrospective).

 

Additional Information:

 

A late letter of objection was received from No. 20 on Monday 15^th September. No new issues were raised.

 

Revised plans were received on Monday 15^th September. The revised plans amended a minor discrepancy in the roof extension over the single storey rear extension which was shown to have less steep pitch.

 

Condition 1 plan No’s updated accordingly:

 

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans: PR-L003, REV A, PR-P001 REV A, PR-P002 REV

A, PR-P004 REV A, PR-E001 REV A, PR-E002 REV A, PR-E003, REV A,

PR-E004 REV A, PR-D001 REV A, PR-D002 REV A, PR-L002 REV A, PRS001

REV A, PR-S002 REV A, all received 02.09.2025.

PR-L003 REV A, PR-E001 REV A, PR-P002 REV A, PR-P004 REV A, PR-E001 REV A, PR-E002 REV A, PR-E003 REV A, PR-E004 REV A, PR-D001 REV A, PR-D002

 

Public Speaking:

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Martin O’Connell spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

1.    The developers had already breached the approved plans.

2.    The boundary wall had been built too near to the neighbouring property.

3.    Building works began before planning approval was granted.

4.    Strong belief that the property would be converted into a House of Multiple Occupation.

5.    Increase on-street parking pressure.

6.    Inappropriate development that does not respect the integrity of the planning system.

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Hannah Messham of Dimensions Planning & Architecture spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

1.    The bungalow had been left neglected for many years before the applicant purchased it.

2.    Planning permission had previously been granted for 2 high-quality flats with spacious living accommodation.

3.    Prior approval had already been obtained for a side extension under permitted development that allowed the extension to be built right up to the boundary with number 20.

4.    The applicant decided not to extend to the neighbours boundary due to concerns raised by the owner of the neighbouring property.

5.    The space between the extension and the neighbours windows exceeds the BRE daylight standards.

6.    The first floor elevation was deliberately sloped to safeguard light.

7.    The tall hedges and trees that grew along the boundary and obstructed light had now been removed.

8.    If the application was refused it would result in the applicant having to demolish the existing side extension which would result in months of renewed disruption whilst works were redone.

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Neal as Ward Councillor provided a statement that was read out by Councillor Nichols raising the following key points:

 

1.     The 45 degree rule has been breached.

2.     The building should adhere to the published plans.

3.     The overreach in size was no accident.

4.     Developer has shown disregard for safety and building regulations.

5.     If approved, a condition should be put in place limiting any further changes to the dwelling.

6.     Feel that the building work has been undertaken in the anticipation of permission to convert the dwelling to a House of Multiple Occupation.

 

Debate:

 

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

 

1.    The Council should be enforcing the planning approval that was previously granted.

2.    The applicant had breached the initial planning approval and if the Council had been aware of the breach whilst building work was being undertaken this would have been addressed.

3.    The property is to the detriment of the neighbouring residents

4.    Loss of light to one of the side windows.

5.    This is a case of a deliberately ‘pushing the limits’.

 

Councillor Clarke requested a named vote.

 

For	Councillors Beecher & Burrell – 2 votes
Against	Councillors Bateson, Buck, Clarke, Geraci, Howkins, Lee, Nichols, Woodward – 8 votes
Abstain	Councillors Beatty, Chandler, Grant, Rutherford – 4 votes

 

The motion to approve the application subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 8 of the report FELL

 

It was proposed by Councillor Woodward and seconded by Councillor Clarke that the application is overturned and refused for the following reason:

 

The proposal is rejected due to the poor design and negative effect on amenity of the neighbouring 20 Wellington Road property due to loss of light and overbearing nature under EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, adopted 26^th February 2009, the NPPF and the SPD on Design of Residential Extensions and New Residential Development, April 2011.

 

The Committee voted on the new motion as follows:

 

For – 12

Against – 0

Abstain - 2

 

Decision:

 

The application was overturned and refused for the following reason: -

 

The proposal is rejected due to the poor design and negative effect on amenity of the neighbouring 20 Wellington Road property due to loss of light and overbearing nature under EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, adopted 26^th February 2009, the NPPF and the SPD on Design of Residential Extensions and New Residential Development, April 2011.