To consider a report by the Head of Planning.
Application 3/19/0985/FUL, for a proposed single storey extension to Unit 3, to form a bedroom and en-suite at Misty Meadow, 147 Ringwood Road, Longham, Ferndown, was considered by members.
A visual presentation showed what the main proposals and planning issues of the development were; how these were to be progressed; and what the benefits for the applicant of the development would be. Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, dimensions and design of the extension; how it would look and its setting; showed the development’s relationship with the characteristics of the other development on site and in that part of Longham in particular.
Officers made particular reference to what impact the proposal would have on the character of the area and on amenity. As it was considered to be only a modest side extension to Unit 3 - of the same height and form as the existing dwelling and was set back and well screened - there would be minimal impact on the character of the area, with amenity being unaffected by the proposed improvement of creating a three bedroomed property.
Ferndown Town Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds that the
development would harm the openness of the Green Belt. However, officers explained that saved policy GB7 stated that infill development would be allowed in this area provided that it was contained wholly within the Village Infill Envelope and should be of a scale and character that respected the existing village form. This application fulfilled that requirement
The planning history of the site was explained, along with what relevant appeal decisions had been made. Significantly, the previously taken decision - for removal of the planning condition limiting permitted development rights for
extensions - had since been reinstated, meaning that such a side extension could now be achieved without the need for express planning permission. The consequence of this and taking that into account that:-
· the application complied with Policy HE2;
· there was no harm to character of area or neighbouring amenity;
· given that permitted development rights had been reinstated; and
· an extension which was 0.1m narrower would be more beneficial,
officers found the application to accord with the Development Plan, National Planning Policy and guidance. There were not considered to be any matters which could warrant refusal of planning permission in this case and the application was therefore being recommended for approval.
Throughout consideration of the item, the opportunity was given for members to ask questions of the officer’s presentation or what they had heard from others, with officer’s providing clarification in respect of points raised, as necessary.
Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application, having
understood what was being proposed and the reasoning for this; having taken
into account the officer’s report and what they had heard at the meeting,
the Committee were satisfied in their understanding of what the proposal was
designed to address and, on that basis – and on being put to the vote – the
Committee considered that the application should be approved, subject to the
conditions set out in the officer’s report
That application 3/19/0985/FUL be granted permission, subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 of the officer’s report.
Reasons for Decision
1)The proposed extension would not harm the character of the area so was acceptable within the Village Infill Area.
2)There was not considered to be any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity.