Southwell Town Council lodge no objection to two extensions despite concerns over parking lost due to garage conversions

Concerns have been raised over the loss of parking caused by two planning applications – but councillors did not object to the proposals.

Southwell Town Council’s planning committee met on Wednesday (February 7) and lodged no objection to two planning applications for extensions — both of which involve the conversion of a garage to a living space.

The first application, for 13 Glenfields in Southwell, proposed a two storey side extension and internal remodelling to create a large kitchen-dining-living space, playroom, dressing area and ensuite for the master bedroom, and a dual-purpose home office and art studio where the garage is currently located.

Committee chairman Jeremy Berridge said the proposals were “not unusual” but raised concerns about the size of the house on the plot compared to the remaining garden, and the loss of the garage as a parking space.

Steve Perry echoed the concern and suggested planning applications should have a requirement for the number of parking spaces to be maintained.

There is no such planning policy in force at Newark and Sherwood District Council, Roger Blaney explained, and added: “It is something which could be included in a revision of the neighbourhood plan.

“I can’t see any planning grounds to object.”

Gina Adams added that the council should be careful of encouraging people to pave over front gardens due to the environmental impact.

Councillors unanimously agreed to lodge no objects to the application, but instead make a note of their concerns over lost parking.

The second garage conversion application was for 44 Landseer Road, Southwell, which proposes a side, front and rear extension to the house and a dropped kerb.

It plans to create a large rear kitchen and family room, entrance lobby, utility, WC and a larder, and a second sitting room in place of the current garage.

Upstairs the plans outline a study, larger third bedroom, larger bathroom and a dressing room and ensuite off the master bedroom.

Mr Berridge said: “It did appear to be a significant increase in the size of the property.”

He again raised concerns about the loss of the garage, but added that he couldn’t see “anything fundamental” to warrant an objection.

Malcolm Brock expressed his reservations about the application, while Mr Blaney mentioned the “bizarre arrangement” of the plan which sees the sitting room accessed via the larder.

Despite this, the application was not objected to.