Issue - meetings
Meeting: 31/08/2023 - Planning Committee (Item 32)
PDF 205 KBProposed conservatory roof height 3.5 metres within 2 metres of boundary (retrospective).
Minutes:
Members were told that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the land was owned by Tendring District Council.
The Committee heard that the application sought retrospective permission for the erection of a conservatory. Whilst the footprint of the conservatory met the permitted development criteria, the overall height measured 3.5 metres and fell within 2 metres of the boundary, so planning permission was therefore required.
Officers informed the Committee that the conservatory was a single storey feature, measuring 3.15 metres deep by 4.75 metres wide. The eaves height was 2.5 metres and overall ridge height measured 3.5 metres. The conservatory was deemed by Officers to be of an acceptable size, scale and appearance with no significant adverse effects on the visual amenities of the area.
The Committee was also told that the single storey nature of the conservatory meant that it posed no significant threat to overlooking or loss of privacy to the adjacent neighbouring dwellings. It had no significant impacts on the loss of light, which, in the opinion of Officers, would be significant enough as to justify refusing planning permission.
The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Planning Officer (AL) in respect of the application.
There were no matters raised on the Planning Officers’ Update Sheet in respect of this application.
There were no public speakers on this application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-
|
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
Could you please clarify why Members could not attend this site as part of the Committee’s site visits today? |
This is a site owned by the Council but it has tenants in situ. Officers did not receive in time the required permission from the tenants to access the site. Therefore, it would have been a breach of their privacy for the Committee to progress through the house in order to view the conservatory in the back garden [there being no side access available]. Officers were also not aware of any public vantage point that would have enabled Members to view this application site. Officers did not have any other valid reason to, otherwise delay the determination of this application. |
|
Can you confirm that this application is only before the Committee because the Council is the landowner otherwise it would have been dealt with by Officers under their delegated powers? |
Yes, that is correct. |
It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Placey and:-
RESOLVED unanimously that the Head of Planning & Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to:-
(a) the condition as stated at paragraph 8.2 of the Officer report, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the condition as referenced is retained; and
(b) the ... view the full minutes text for item 32