House extensions and annexe at Bernkastel, 78 Peartree Lane, Doddinghurst

What was proposed

The application sought garage conversion, front and rear extensions, a porch, external render and a detached self-contained annexe.

“CONVERSION OF GARAGE TO HABITABLE ACCOMMODATION, EXTEND FRONT DORMER AND SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION AND PORCH, ADD PART SINGLE/PART TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION, APPLY RENDER TO DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF DETACHED SELF CONTAINED ANNEX.”

“Planning permission is sought to convert the garage into habitable accommodation, extend the front dormer, add a single storey front extension and porch canopy and replace flat roof with gable roofs to both front elements. To the rear of the property proposals include the addition of a part single part two storey rear extension and a detached self-contained annexe within the rear garden at Bernkastel, 78 Peartree Lane, Doddinghurst.”

Officer report

The site

The detached two-storey chalet fronts an unmade road, overlooks an open field or paddock, and has similar houses nearby.

“The application dwelling is a detached two storey chalet located on the western side of Peartree Lane fronting an unmade road and overlooking an open field/paddock area. Properties to the south are of similar character and design to the application dwelling, with the remaining properties abutting the north boundary forming detached bungalows, some benefiting from first floor dormers additions.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval, concluding that the proposal was acceptable and would not materially harm neighbours, local character or visual amenity.

“The proposal is considered acceptable in planning terms, would not have a detrimental impact on visual amenity, harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area nor be materially harmful to the living conditions of nearby occupiers and is compliant with Policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan and the NPPF.”

“The Application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected over overdevelopment, the rear extension’s impact, the boundary, the annexe’s future use and access.

“The rear extension will have an overbearing effect on the property and garden at 70 Peartree Lane. A shortening of the rear extension by a few metres would have a less overbearing impact.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Four representations from one neighbouring occupier raised concerns including overbearing effects, loss of light and privacy, noise, trees and the outbuilding.

“Two representations in support of the proposals have been received. Four representations from one neighbouring occupier including two comments submitted by an Agent on behalf of the occupiers raising the following concerns:”

“Overbearing feature • Loss of light and overshadowing • Loss of privacy • Noise and disturbance • Impact of character and appearance of property and surrounding area • Undesirable precedent • Impact of Trees/hedges • Outbuilding not ancillary • Scale and no justification for outbuilding • Access to neighbours land during the construction phase.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard objections from a neighbour, the parish council and the ward councillor, and heard from the applicant’s representative.

Members’ debate

Members noted changes made after neighbours’ concerns, while one member sought boundary protection and another member opposed the proposal as overbearing.

“Cllr McCheyne, speaking as Ward Councillor, thought the proposal was overbearing and could not support the application.”

“Members recognised that changes had been made to the application following neighbours’ concerns which was positive.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application subject to the report’s conditions and an additional condition to retain or replace existing boundaries.

“Cllr Barrett could see no reasons to refuse this application and MOVED a motion to APPROVE the application. This was SECONDED by Cllr Rigby.”

“The motion to APPROVE the application was CARRIED subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the additional condition to retain or replace the existing boundaries.”

Minutes