Bungalow roof conversion at Carousel, Near Town, Olney

What was proposed

The application sought a higher roof, first-floor accommodation, dormers, a front gabled extension, external alterations and a detached cycle store.

“Proposal: Increase roof pitch, provide first floor accommodation within newly created roof space, two dormers on front and rear roof slopes, two roof lights on rear roof slope, front gabled extension, alterations to windows arrangement and internal layout, render brick elevations in monocouche off-white render, replacement roof covering in natural blue/gey slate and detached cycle/storage building to front at Carousel, Near Town, Olney, MK46 4AN”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a five-bedroom detached bungalow with two parking spaces, neighbouring gardens and dwellings, and the conservation area along its western boundary.

“The site comprises a five-bedroom detached bungalow (formally two separate bungalows). The rear garden is enclosed with a tall hedge to the rear and a timber fence to each side with a detached garden building adjacent the boundaries with 4 and 6A East Street. Parking for two cars is provided on a driveway to the front.”

“The site is bordered by neighbouring gardens to the rear, dwellings to either side and a one- way lane to the front leading from East Street/Palmers Road to Timpsons Row. The front elevation overlooks the rear gardens of dwellings on Palmers Road.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and advice

An extension joining two bungalows was approved in 2013, while an earlier first-floor proposal was withdrawn in May 2025 after pre-application advice.

“PRE/2025/1109 Proposed increased roof pitch to allow first floor bedrooms, proposed full height front porch and render elevations Advice given – 9 th July 2025”

“PLN/2025/0255 Proposed first floor extension to include front and rear dormers, increase in ridge height and integrated solar panels to existing bungalow and proposed garage and landscaping works to include new boundary wall and sliding gate. Withdrawn – 2 nd May 2025”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because ground-floor bedroom and bathroom accommodation would remain, while the design and residential amenity impacts were acceptable.

“Policy HN9 of Plan:MK sets out a presumption against proposals that would result in the loss of a bungalow or single storey dwelling, either via demolition or its conversion to two or more storeys. The proposal would create an additional floor containing habitable accommodation. This effectively results in the loss of a bungalow and creates conflict with Policy HN9.”

“The proposal would, however, retain a bedroom and bathroom to the ground floor, and therefore would still provide suitable accommodation for occupants with limited mobility. In addition, a large open plan kitchen/family room and separate sitting room is shown on the plans. An appeal for a similar proposal was allowed for a reduction in built footprint and an additional storey over an existing bungalow.”

Officer report

Comments from residents

Eight comments from six addresses raised concerns including overlooking, safety, traffic, drainage, loss of bungalow accommodation, scale, design and lighting.

“Overlooking, loss of privacy; ▪ Highway and pedestrian safety; ▪ Additional traffic; ▪ Surface water drainage; ▪ Loss of a bungalow/disabled accommodation; ▪ Impact to conservation area; ▪ Excessive scale, height and mass; ▪ Contemporary design out of character;”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor McLean spoke in support, noting the withdrawn application, pre-application advice and the applicants’ positive response to planning guidance.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed accessible homes, future changes to ground-floor rooms, residential amenity, the conservation area, parking pressure and permitted development rights.

“Councillor McLean spoke in support of the application. He noted that the applicants had withdrawn a previous application earlier in the year and sought pre-application advice before submitting the revised proposal. The applicants positive response to advice and planning guidance was noted, and he requested the panel to approve the application. Councillor McLean then left the chamber in accordance with procedure.”

“A member expressed concern that changes could reduce accessibility in future without being subject to planning permission, but that the ability to have ground floor living was available. In summary, the Chair commented on the lack of harm to the residential amenity or conservation area, and no increase on parking pressures. The need to preserve bungalows was highlighted, with comments made on the ability for permitted development to redevelop them.”

Minutes