Agenda item

Double garage with storage/home office above.

Permit

Miss Haigh presented the report. She drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an Addendum to the report at paragraph 8.15; an Addendum to the Decided Plans table and an additional third-party representation.

Miss Haigh highlighted the site location, which was outside the Chichester Settlement boundary. She explained the application was for the erection of a double garage with storage/home office above, which would be located within the northwest of the site within the curtilage of the main dwelling. Miss Haigh confirmed there would be no change to the current access arrangements.

The site was well screened with existing planting and hedgerows already established; Miss Haigh drew attention to the planting on the northern boundary which was the closest to where the building would be. She informed the Committee the nearest neighbouring property was located over 30m away from the proposed building.

Miss Haigh confirmed that all existing trees on the site had been surveyed and would be secured through condition 3 to protect them during construction.

Miss Haigh showed the Committee the proposed elevations and explained the proposed materials, which would be in keeping with the surrounding vernacular. In addition to the orientation of the building the proposed dormer windows would be obscure glazed and positioned 1.7m above first floor level, in order to minimise any overlooking to neighbouring properties.

The maximum ridge height of the proposed building would be 5.6m.

Miss Haigh confirmed (as stated in the Agenda Update Sheet) the building would be conditioned (Condition 5) as an ancillary building and not incidental due to the installation of a WC on the first floor which.

The following representations were made;

Mr Mark Stonefrost – Objector

Mr Paul Stedman – Objector

Ms Anne Christie - Objector

Mr Ryan Bennett – Applicant

Cllr Clare Apel – CDC Ward Member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

In response to a question regarding why the building had been changed from incidental to ancillary; Miss Smith explained the difference between a building classed as incidental and one classed as ancillary. She explained the reason for the proposed building being classified as ancillary was the inclusion of a WC.

On the matter of the height and size of the proposed development; Miss Haigh confirmed the maximum height would be 5.6m, and the area of the first floor would be 27.2m².

In response to concerns regarding the potential future use of the building; Miss Smith agreed that if the Committee wished, a condition could be included within the permission to restrict the use of the building to what was proposed – garage and store.

With regards to the obscure glazing in dormer windows; Miss Smith agreed a condition could be included to ensure the dormer windows remained obscurely glazed in perpetuity. She confirmed the obscure glazing would extend to the top of the windows.

With regards to restricting the opening of the windows; Miss Smith advised this would not be possible due to building regulations which would require the windows to have the option of opening for safety reasons.

On the matter of external lighting; Miss Smith acknowledged concerns raised regarding the potential impact from external lighting and advised if the Committee were concerned a condition could be included to restrict the use of external lighting.

On the matter of the previous site application; Ms Stevens explained the proposal was an outline application for a two-storey dwelling with single storey element. The height of the two-storey section would have been 7.4m in height, the proposal was located further forward and had windows facing to the east; it was refused as it was deemed unacceptable in principle. She explained the material differences between the previous application and the application been considered which was recommended to permit. 

With regards to safeguarding the existing landscaping during construction; Miss Smith advised a condition could be included along the northern and western boundaries to ensure any trees damaged would be replaced.

With regards height of the main dwelling; Miss Smith informed the Committee she did not have the exact height of the dwelling but estimated it to be around 7.5m/8m in height, the proposed building had a maximum height of 5.6m and would appear subservient to the main dwelling. In addition, there was a single storey outbuilding between the main dwelling and the proposed building

On the matter of thermal efficiency and fire safety; Miss Smith explained these would be addressed through Building Regulations.

With regards to light spillage from the building; Miss Smith advised that in officer opinion it would not be reasonable to apply a condition requiring the installation of blinds, as there was no such condition attached to the main dwelling.

On the matter of distance between the proposed building and the hedge; Miss Smith confirmed there would be approximately 2.5m on the northern boundary and 3m on the western boundary, between the building and the hedge. This would allow sufficient access to ensure the hedge was suitably maintained.

On the issue of the proposed building’s proximity to neighbouring properties; Miss Smith confirmed there was over 30m between the building and the nearest neighbouring property. The proposed positioning of the building and windows, along with the addition of obscure glazing minimised the impact of overlooking into neighbouring properties.

On the matter of protecting the oak tree; Miss Smith informed the Committee that the tree was not subject to a TPO, nor was it located within a conservation area, however, she assured them that officers had worked with the applicant to ensure the tree would be suitably protected during development. In addition, she reminded them of the additional condition which would require the replacement of any trees damaged during development. In officer opinion it was not necessary to apply a TPO.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of the report recommendation to permit, including the following additional conditions:

-       Condition to restrict external lighting

-       Condition to restrict the use of the building to what has been applied for (double garage, home office and storage)

-       Condition to enhance planting and landscaping

-       Condition to ensure obscure glazing is maintained in perpetuity

Resolved; permit subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, plus the additional conditions as set out above.

*Members took a five-minute break

*Cllr Wilding arrived at 10am and abstained from the vote