Agenda item

Westbury, Hose Lane, Long Clawson

Applicant: Mrs Bryan

Location:  Westbury, Hose Lane, Long Clawson

Proposal: Link extension to connect garage to house and new stair access to first floor attic bedroom

 

(a)  The Development Manager stated that: This application is a householder application that seeks permission for the addition of a link extension to join the existing double garage and residential dwelling.  The link measures 5 metres in length and 7 metes in width with a height to match the existing garage.

 

The link would provide an entrance hall and dining room to ground floor and a landing to the first floor which would provide access to two bedrooms.

 

The proposal is presented to you as a member call in request, there are no updates to the report and the application is recommended for approval as per the officer report.

 

(b)  Elizabeth Swain, agent on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that: the agent and applicant had been working with the officer for sometime on the application and there had been no issues until a neighbour objection has been received. There was a previous application for a garage to the side which had been built and there were no issues. The family has increased in numbers hence the need for the additional space. It has been designed to be subservient to the original building and the materials chosen to give a lightweight finish. The proposed extension is also stepped back on the front and back to ensure subservience. It will provide additional living space and easier access to the accommodation upstairs in the loft space.

 

A Member noted that the previous application was in 2003 and had not been executed in the way it was approved. The current application is trying to regularise what has been done before. It looks odd and there are outstanding problems. How does it fit in to produce a coherent property? It is currently a shell of a building. The planning conditions were not complied with previously so how do we know they will be this time?

 

Elizabeth Swain responded that it would be down to planning enforcement should they not comply. The previous application had gone past the 10 year time limit so not enforcement action could be taken now. It had not been fully completed however if this application was approved it would be completed and help this extension work with the existing house.

 

A Member noted that the floor level of the garage is 2 feet below what is required and a car wouldn’t be able to drive in to it

 

Elizabeth Swain explained that it is still a garage space and that the landscaping and driveway is not complete. When they are completed it would bring it up to the correct level.

 

The Chair noted that condition 4 stated that the garage was not to be used as anything other than a garage.

 

A Member felt that this still doesn’t regularise the garage issue.

 

A Member asked for clarification with regards to why they have chosen a zinc roof and the ridge heights.

 

Elizabeth Swain explained that it is to reduce the mass of the building as it sets it down a little bit. The zinc roof is to break up the building and mass of material.

 

The Development Manager advised Members that no enforcement action could be taken on the garage as it has been built for more than 10 years. The use of the garage has not changed as it is not complete.

 

A Member suggested a clause that officers have to visit the site to ensure that this application is constructed within the planning conditions advised.

 

The Chair reminded Members that they can’t force someone to complete construction but that if they start using it for something other than agreed they can. We can’t condition that planning officers visit building to check they comply but this should be picked up by building regulations or if someone should complain it would be looked at by enforcement.

 

Members raised concerns regarding the use of zinc for the roof and felt there could be a better match and asked if the materials could be conditioned.

 

The Development Manager advised that they can’t impose their architectural views but if members felt it appropriate they could amend the conditions to request samples of the materials. The different material has been chosen to show the break up and make it more visually pleasing.

 

Cllr Greenow proposed to permit the application and added that he was also concerned regarding the material but it makes sense.

 

Cllr Posnett seconded the proposal and added that it will make a home complete and be of more use to the people who live in it. There will be no impact on neighbours.

 

A vote was taken and the Members voted unanimously to permit.

 

Determination: PERMIT, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

Reason:  The proposal would create a small link between the bungalow and the garage.  Its design is suitable for the dwelling and would be an appropriately scaled addition. The proposed development has been designed to have limited impact on adjoining properties and would reflect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would not have an adverse impact on highway safety. Accordingly, the proposal complies with the stated policies and guidance.