Address:       55 Woburn Street, Ampthill, Bedford, MK45 2HX

Erection of two storey rear extension.

Applicant:    Ms Whitehead

The Committee had before it a report regarding the erection of a two storey rear extension at 55 Woburn Street, Ampthill, Bedford, MK45 2HX.

There were no additional consultation/publicity responses, comments or additional/amended conditions reported in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from the applicant, Mrs Jennifer Whitehead.  The applicant responded to a request for clarification on the award of a Court Order to fund the provision of a bedroom and other personal space for her daughter due to the latter’s medical conditions.

(Note: Following comments by Members, and in accordance with paragraph 13.2 of Part 4G of the Constitution, the Chairman allowed the applicant’s agent to speak on the application).

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from the applicant’s agent, Mr Francis Caldwell.

The ward Member, who had called in the application, referred briefly to the information already provided by the applicant.  He then advised of the reasons why the applicant had bought the property she and her family occupied, including the need to be in close proximity to her daughter’s school in case of a medical emergency.  The ward Member explained the applicant’s aim was to provide a suitable type and standard of accommodation for her daughter given the latter’s need for constant care.  To this end the design of the extension was of a suitable style and size whilst leaving sufficient garden space for the daughter to enjoy.  The ward Member explained that the extension could not be sold as an individual dwelling as the site as a whole was Grade II Listed.  He explained how the application was compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), would not cause significant harm to the Conservation Area, be of benefit to the family as whole, enable the applicant to undertake the care and support her daughter required during periods of trauma and allow the daughter to experience sustainable independent living when possible.  The ward Member briefly outlined the reasons the NHS supported the application.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The conservation officer had identified less than substantial harm (as defined in the NPPF) to the fabric and historical significance of the building arising from the application and so had raised an objection to it.

·         No public benefits had been identified to outweigh the level of harm that would be caused.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The Planning Policy Guidance support for the comments made by the applicant’s agent, although the Guidance had not been updated to reflect the latest NPPF.

·         That the Guidance stated that it was a matter of judgement for the decision taker as to whether a proposal would cause substantial harm (i.e. the level of harm above that claimed by the conservation officer) having regard to the circumstances of the case.

·         That the Committee’s site inspection had revealed that the application would not cause significant harm to the significance,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107