Agenda item

Erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension with 1 rooflight (involving demolition of existing attached shed)

Recommendation : Approval, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension with 1 rooflight (involving demolition of existing attached shed).

66648/APP/2009/2793

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

• Unacceptable loss of light to 101 & 105 Haig Road.
• Bedrooms not of a reasonable size.
• Extension would be in close proximity to 101 and 105, which would be overdominant.
• Proposal would have an impact on the private family life of adjoining neighbours
• The extension does not harmonise with the surrounding area
• The design and appearance would not be subordinate
• The extension would be domineering in character and dimension
• The proposed flat roof could be used as a balcony or fire escape.
• The parking is inadequate maybe not at present but may be an issue in the future
• There is no justification for the cost of the extension
• Windows although obscure glazed would still be opening and would cause privacy issues for adjoining property.

The agent/applicant did not address the meeting but submitted a letter that was attached to the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

The Ward Councillor addressed the meeting making the following points:-

• Supported the petitioners and the robust account for their reasons for the petition.
• There are no other extension in the vicinity.
• This is a large extension changing a 2 bedroom house to a 4 bedroom house.
• The adjoining property has a conservatory and there would be an impact for the occupiers.
• The plans do not give the situation on the ground and would ask members to defer the application for a site visit.

In answer to an issue raised in relation to the neighbouring conservatory officers advised that there was a conservatory next door and that when compiling the overshadowing diagram this was taken into account.

A member raised concerns in relation to the parking stating that the extension would double the size of the property and if other properties in the area did the same this would have an impact on the area.   Concerns were also raised in relation to the levels on the site.

Officers stated that the Council’s parking standards required 2 parking spaces for a new build, but the Council’s standards do not relate to the number of bedrooms.   The current proposal does not affect the current parking requirement.

It was suggested that a site visit would be useful on this application as there had been genuine concerns raised in relation to car parking arrangements & local parking situation, identify construction of and the relationship of the proposal to the neighbouring conservatory, observe the levels on site; and for additional information to be provided with regard to the existing and proposed levels of overshadowing.

It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred to enable members to make a site visit.  On being put to the vote the application was deferred for a site visit.

Resolved – That the application be deferred to enable members to undertake a site visit to the site.