Agenda item

(Development Management Service Manager) To consider the attached report.

The Development Management Service Manager, A Marx, presented a report for alterations to an existing side roof dormer window at 83 Bell Common in Epping.

A Marx reported that this application had been considered at Area Plans Sub-Committee East on 8 July 2020, with an Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission. Following a discussion on the history of the site, the impact of the dormer window, and the setting of the surrounding area, the Officer recommendation was upheld. However, four members of the Sub-Committee invoked the minority reference rules within the Constitution to refer the application to this Committee.

A Marx informed the Committee that the site contained a newly built four-bedroom dwelling, and was within both the Bell Common Conservation Area and the Metropolitan Green Belt. The application sought permission to reduce the size of the existing unauthorised side roof dormer window. The key consideration for the determination of this application was the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the property and the wider Bell Common Conservation Area.

The Committee noted the history of this site, and that a retrospective application (EPF/2955/17) had been submitted as the side roof dormer window had not been constructed in accordance with the original planning permission (EPF/2829/16). This application had been refused, and an appeal against the enforcement notice had been dismissed by the Planning Inspector as the dormer window was not considered subordinate to the roof slope and protruded significantly.

Planning Officers had concluded that the proposed dormer window – due to its size,  position and appearance – was out of character with the neighbouring properties and was therefore harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene and the Conservation Area. In addition, the revised scheme failed to address the concerns raised by the Planning Inspector when dismissing the appeal against the enforcement notice. Consequently, the application was recommended for refusal.

The Committee noted the summary of representations received in relation to this application, which included no objection from the Town Council and an objection from the Council’s Conservation Officer. The Committee heard from the Applicant’s Agent before proceeding to debate the application.

Cllr J Philip acknowledged that the site had a long planning history, and that the dormer window was very prominent from the road. The Councillor did not feel that the modifications were sufficient as the dormer window was now significantly further forward than in the original plans, and consequently would be supporting the Officer recommendation to refuse permission. Cllr C C Pond cautioned the Committee to guard against granting permission to a succession of minor changes as this would undermine the appearance of the Conservation Area. The Councillor felt that the reasons for refusal offered by Planning Officers were sound and he would support the Officer recommendation.

Cllr J M Whitehouse countered that the dormer window was not particularly noticeable as he often ran down this road, and also found it difficult to identify any harm to the Conservation Area from it. The Councillor respected the recommendations of the Planning Officers but highlighted that the Town Council had not objected to the proposal, and therefore was minded to support the proposal. Cllr S Heap agreed with the principle outlined by Cllr C C Pond, and concurred that the dormer window was noticeable, but its purpose was to provide light for an internal stairway so he would support the application.

Cllr R Morgan opined that the dormer window was too prominent, too large, and not in accordance with the approved plans. Cllr D Dorrell stated that the dormer window was very obvious and prominent, and that the proposal did not go far enough to address concerns previously raised. Both Councillors stated that they would support the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Decision:

(1)        That permission for planning application EPF/0891/20 at 83 Bell Common in Epping be refused for the following reason:

            1…The proposed dormer, by virtue of its prominent siting, size, bulk and design             will result in a dominant incongruous and unattractive feature which will             undermine the appearance of the dwelling, street scene and the wider local             character and appearance of the Bell Common Conservation Area. There are             no public benefits which would outweigh this harm. The proposal is therefore             contrary to the requirements of S72(1) of the Planning and Listed Building and             Conservation Areas Act 1990; Chapters 12 and 16 of the NPPF; policies HC6,             HC7, DBE1, DBE3 of the Local Plan and Alterations along with policies DM7,             DM9 and DM10 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan (Submission Version)             2017.