Home extensions and loft conversion at 33 Windmill Drive, Rustington

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONThe application proposes single storey side and rear extensions, a loft conversion including 1 No. rear dormer, front rooflights, the installation of solar panels, and an open canopy front porch.”

“DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITY The site is a semi-detached bungalow located at 33 Windmill Drive, located within Character Area 6 of the Rustington Neighbourhood Plan (RNP); therefore, the proposal must also be assessed against Policy 2. This application seeks planning permission for the construction of single storey side and rear extensions, a loft conversion including 1 No. rear dormer, front rooflights and the installation of solar panels, and an open front porch canopy.”

“The proposed development is sited within a residential area characterised with a wide variety of semi- detached bungalows, and semi-detached and terraced houses of varying bulk; of which many have constructed rear and side extensions.”

“It needs to be determined by Planning Committee because the applicant is an Arun District Council employee. REPRESENTATIONS Rustington Parish Council - No objection.”

“Given the varied size and bulk of neighbouring dwellings, the development would not appear unduly dominant nor result in harm to the character, appearance, or visual amenity of the host dwelling or street scene. Therefore, the proposal would be in accordance with Arun Local Plan policies D DM1 and D DM4, the ADG and policy 2 of the RNP.”

“The proposed loft conversion and rear dormer would abut the neighbour's existing dormer to the west. It is acknowledged that a dormer of a comparable size and scale could be constructed under permitted development and given that the rear dormer would be contained within the existing rear roof slope of the host dwelling, and the spacing maintained between the rear dormer and neighbouring properties, the proposed development would not result in harm to the neighbouring…”

“Plans and elevations were outlined, and the officer noted that minor amended plans had been submitted the previous day, but the changes were not material and could be built under permitted development. The proposed front-facing additions were considered in keeping with neighbouring properties.”

“A Member commented that the neighbouring properties already featured similar additions, including solar panels, rooflights and rear extensions. Given this, and noting that several elements of the proposal could be carried out under permitted development, the Member considered that there were no clear planning grounds on which a refusal could be justified and expressed support for the application.”

“The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Blanchard-Cooper and seconded by Councillor Woodman.”

“No further comments were raised, and the Chair proceeded to the vote.”

“That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY.”