Agenda item

Retrospective application for a single storey rear extension and front boundary wall and gates.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Retrospective application for a single storey rear extension and front boundary wall and gates

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the application was recommended for refusal.

A petitioner’s objections to the application were detailed, key points of which included:

·         The house, due to various extensions, has been turned into an eyesore that no longer conforms to policy DMHB 11 and the street scene.

·         The owner has a track record of ignoring planning approval and building something that is often then the subject of enforcement action. This is something to be discouraged.

·         Since the officer’s report, the wall has had lanterns installed, which add to its unsuitability.

·         The rear extension is not acceptable due to its size and design, which is visibly intrusive and over dominant.

·         Further construction without planning consent includes the windows on the first floor of the side extension, a side wall that is higher than planned, and soil pipes in the wrong position.

·         It is requested that the application be refused, and that the rear extensions be specifically included in the refusal. The applicant should be ordered to build in accordance with the approved plans, and be subject to enforcement if this is not fulfilled.

The applicant’s submission was detailed, key points of which included:

·         The report states that the rear extension is considered acceptable, and that the proposal complies with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 1 of the Local Plan Part 2. The subject of the recommendation for refusal is therefore the front wall.

·         The wall is deemed to be out of character with the front boundary treatments. Other nearby properties have similar boundary treatments.

·         The report’s references to sliding gate openings and gated vehicular access are incorrect. Only one gate to the driveway is a sliding gate, with the other a door style opening installed to provide a balanced aesthetic and to allow for garbage to be taken out. There is no intent to have a second driveway, and since installation of the gate, cars have continued to park in front of it.

·         The proposed soft landscaping provision is an increase over the original landscaping and will be in keeping with the visual character of the street scene.

·         The design has been put forward following a review of several properties on the street and is in keeping with the street scene. Only 3 of 14 neighbours have raised objections, and many have praised the look of the property.

·         The reference to legal actions following damage to a neighbouring property’s shed is incorrect. A surveyor report has since confirmed that the damage was due to a neighbour’s conservatory resting on the shed. No legal action is pending.

·         The development of 15 Kewferry Road has substantially increased the property’s value and, by extension, that of neighbouring properties.

Councillor Richard Lewis, Ward Councillor for Northwood, submitted a statement supporting the officer’s recommendation for refusal and highlighting his concerns that the high lantern roof was overdominant, suggesting that the roof should be reduced in height.

Members discussed the applicoant and supported the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.