Agenda item

The following application will be considered:

1.  22/01753/FUL 24 The Tyning, Widcombe, Bath

The Committee considered:

1. A report by the Head of Planning on site visit applications.
   
   
2. Oral statements by members of the public and representatives on items.  (A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes).

RESOLVED that in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers, the application be determined as set out in the site visit decision list attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

Item No. 1 Application No: 22/01753/FUL 24

Site Location: 24 The Tyning, Widcombe, Bath

The Case Officer introduced the report regarding the application for the erection of a single storey rear extension, a first-floor extension over garage, loft conversion and pitched read dormer, replacement of windows and doors and widening of existing driveway.

The Case Officer confirmed his recommendation that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Tim Elson, applicant, speaking in support of the application (read out in his absence).

2.  Dr David Sweetnam, local resident, objecting to the application.

Cllr Alison Born and Cllr Winston Duguid, local ward members, were unable to attend but submitted a statement which was read out by the Democratic Services Officer as summarised below:

1.  The house was in a conservation area where the frontage of the 1930s houses in the road presented as matched pairs and the development would disrupt the homogeneity of the road and harm the character of the conservation area.

2.  The over-garage extension would impact on the light of properties in The Tyning and Tyning End.

3.  There were no other rear dormers on that side of The Tyning or in Tyning End.

4.  The side extension and rear dormer would overshadow the neighbouring property and affect some other neighbouring properties.

5.  The change in levels from the garage to the front door and the quality of the construction would not allow the application to be built as drawn.

6.  The application would result in the house being 5 bedroomed and necessitate a third parking space.

7.  Committee was requested to refuse the application.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1. Officers did not consider the dormer window to be oversized.
2. There would be 2 additional rooms as part of the proposal and even though one of the rooms was not practical to use as a bedroom due to its size, the property would need to be considered as a 5-bedroom house as the rooms could be realigned in the future without planning permission.  In terms of whether this would require an additional parking space, the parking standards were not the same as when considering new build, the test would be whether there would be any highway safety concerns as a result of additional on-street parking, and this was not considered to be an issue in this case as the property was in a parking permit area.
3. It would be possible to add a condition to ensure the surface of the parking area was constructed of a porous material.
4. The daylight assessment showed the comparable light in winter solstice at 3pm and officers considered the impact to be negligible. 

Cllr Duncan Hounsell confirmed that although he was unable to attend the organised site visit, he had visited the site on a separate occasion and considered the application to be similar to other extensions in the Bath and North East Somerset area.  He referred to comments made about an amended application being more suitable and confirmed that the Committee could only determine the application as submitted and whether it was policy compliant.  He stated that he was minded to support the officer’s recommendation to permit the application.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson stated that it was a difficult case as the property was in need of improvement, but she was concerned about the dormer window.  Cllr Shelley Bromley supported this view and stated that she did not consider that the development would enhance the conservation area.  Cllr Shaun Hughes raised concerns about the negative impact of the proposed side extension.

Cllr Hal MacFie expressed concern about the proposal for a dormer and second storey extension setting a precedent in the area. Cllr Lucy Hodge concurred with this view and stated that the application could not be compared with other extensions in the wider area as Widcombe was a conservation area.

Cllr Paul Crossley proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The application would be harmful to the nature of the conservation area and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the street scene.
2. The application constituted an over development of the site. 

This was seconded by Cllr Shelley Bromley and on being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (7 in favour and 3 against)

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The application would be harmful to the nature of the conservation area and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the street scene.
2. The application constituted an over development of the site.