Agenda item

Application 21/00714/HP - 5 Barbourne Court, Barbourne Crescent

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grants planning permission subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report.




The Committee considered an application for the proposed erection of a pitched roof single storey rear/side garage and the proposed erection of a flat roofed single storey side/rear extension at 5 Barbourne Court, Barbourne Crescent.


Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee


The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Lewing.


Report/Background/Late papers


The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the site itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.


The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late papers which related to the following:


·         further representations from neighbouring properties at 4 Barbourne Court, Barbourne Crescent; Clevedon Lodge, Barbourne Crescent; 4 Barbourne Crescent and 3 Barbourne Crescent.  Their concerns were summarised in the late paper;

·         further representation from the applicant related to comments and points of clarification; and

·         full copy of the additional comments received attached as appendix 1.


Officer Presentation


The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.


Public Representations


The following people had registered to speak on the application:


Alwyn Davies and Richard Lockett (Objectors)


A local Ward Member, Councillor Lewing also addressed the Committee.


Key Points of Debate


·         The objectors in addressing the Committee expressed their concerns over various aspects of the proposal particularly in relation to the roof terrace which now had a double door, which was considered not to be in keeping with the design of the property or Barbourne Court.  It was suggested that this should be a window and if not then a condition be applied stating that the flat roof is not used for recreational purposes.  Concerns were raised generally with regard to the extensions and that they will cause significant loss of amenity.  It was felt the proposal would result in over development of the site and would be out of keeping with the Conservation Area and asked that the Committee refuse the application.  The objectors responded to questions on points of clarification from Members.


·         The local Ward Member, Councillor Lewing addressed the Committee expressing her concerns over the process of consultation with neighbouring properties, which had also been highlighted by the objectors as being received quite late in the process.  It was stated that great weight should be given when considering applications within a Conservation Area such as this from all aspects.  In referring to conditions it was requested that two conditions be added, one related to the access to the roof terrace and a condition for construction hours.


·         The Interim Head of Development Management stated that these conditions were in place, namely condition 6 and 5.  Concerns were however expressed over the enforcement of condition 6.  He confirmed that the condition requires the balustrade to remain permanently and that enforcement was reactive.  A Juliet balcony was not an uncommon feature and the condition was to prevent access to the roof to protect the amenity of neighbours.


·         In response to a question over the percentage increase in the proposals  the Interim Head of Development Management referred to the powerpoint presentation showing the key dimensions which he explained to Members.  Members asked that it would be useful in the future to include key dimensions of extensions in the reports to allow an assessment of the size of the extension.


·         Members debated the concerns raised and the Interim Head of Development Management responded to points of clarification.  The Head of Planning did suggest that a change from double doors to a conventional window could be made and delegate to the Chair and Vice Chair to agree the amended plans.


·         Some Members suggested that a strong case for rejecting the application could be made as the site is in a Conservation Area.


·         The Head of Planning having listened to the concerns of Members regarding the size, design, mass and the impact on the Conservation Area, suggested a refusal reason, which he read out for Committee Members.  He stated, however, that this was not his view but based on the points raised by Members, officers had come to a view that the proposal was in accordance with the requirements of the adopted planning policy within the development plan.


·         Members generally agreed that this was overdevelopment and it was relevant that it was in a Conservation Area. 


A proposal to refuse the application had been made on the grounds of design, over development and impact on the character of the Conservation Area and this was seconded. There being no further points made the Chair asked the Legal Team Manager to request the voting of each Member of the Committee who were eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal was refused for the reasons given as follows:


For - 9

Against – 2

Abstentions - 0


Contrary to Officers recommendation it was


RESOLVED:  That the Committee


1.      refuse planning permission on the grounds that theproposed extension would, by virtue of its siting, design and external detailing be harmful to the character and appearance of the area particularly with reference to the St Georges Square Conservation Area and lead to a negative impact on the significance of this heritage asset contrary to SWDP 6, 24 and 21 and the NPPF regarding design and the historic environment; and


2.      delegate authority to the Corporate Director – Planning and       Governance, subject to consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Committee, to confirm the final wording of the above grounds and issue the Decision Notice.


Supporting documents: