Agenda item

WND/2021/0174 – Guilsborough – Demolition of existing bungalow and garage. Construction of 2 storey dwelling and garage to rear of site and single storey dwelling to frontage– The Skerries, High Street

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application for the demolition of the existing bungalow and garage to be replaced by a two storey dwelling and garage and a single storey dwelling. The existing bungalow benefitted from an extant permission to create a second storey to create a 4 bed dwelling. The site was in the confines of the village and the Highway Authority had raised no objections to the proposal. The main concerns were with regard to the impact on residential amenity, overlooking and loss of light. The rear garden of the bungalow was substantial and Rose Cottage overlooked this garden. The flats above the village store had glazed windows on their eastern elevation and their amenity would not be adversely affected by the scheme.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that Members had received a recent communication from the objectors but this had not been sent to Officers.

Paul Mynard and Martin Pett spoke against the application. David O’Neill spoke on behalf of the Parish Council. Councillor Charles Morton, one of the local ward Members, addressed the Committee. Pat Dooley, the agent, addressed the Committee.

Councillors asked the neighbours and the representative from the Parish Council questions.

Councillor Phil Bignell considered that the view from Rose Cottage would be altered significantly by the proposal. Further to an enquiry from Councillor Peter Matten, the Principal Planning Officer advised that a loss of a view was not a planning consideration. Officers considered that the application was acceptable.

Councillor Alan Chantler considered that the new bungalow would be in line with the adjacent property and therefore the impact on the street scene would not be significant. Councillor Chantler did not consider that the impact on Rose Cottage would be unacceptable and proposed that the application be approved, this was seconded by Councillor Rosie Humphreys.

Councillor Rupert Frost proposed that the application be refused as he considered that it would have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties and was contrary to policies R1 and RA2 C, ENV 10 and the Guilsborough Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Phil Bignell seconded the proposal adding that the scale of the development would impact on the neighbours’ amenity.

Further to an enquiry, the Principal Planning Officer advised that between the proposed new dwelling and Rose Cottage there would be a distance of 16 metres, but Rose Cottage was at an oblique angle.

Councillor Daniel Lister considered that there would be a loss of amenity for the neighbours due to the change in the gradient and this would particularly affect Elm Tree House.

Councillor Phil Bignell added that the site was in the historic core of the village. Policy R1 allowed for housing development if as a result there would be an environmental improvement or if local services were under threat. This application would not result in an environmental improvement and would result in a loss of privacy for the neighbours.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the impact on amenity was considered acceptable by Officers. The scale and massing of the proposed 2 storey dwelling could be used as a reason for refusal but the bungalow was at the front of the site and obviously only single storey.

The proposition to approve the application was put to the meeting and declared lost with 2 voting in favour and 7 against.

The proposition to refuse the application was then put to the meeting and declared carried with 7 voting in favour and 2 against.

RESOLVED:

That the application be reused for the following reasons:

The proposed development, by reason of its scale massing height and layout, would have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring dwelling, Paddock View, an adverse impact on the character of the locality and streetscene and would not constitute environmental improvement, contrary to policy R1(i) of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, policies RA2.C.(i) RA2.C(iii), RA2.C(vi), ENV10(iii) and ENV10(viii) of the Settlements and Countryside Local Plan and policy 3(a)2.ii of the Guilsborough Neighbourhood Plan.

…………………………Chair