Issue - meetings

Retention of single storey rear extension involving demolition of existing extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 1 x rear dormer, 2 x front dormers, installation of 2 x roof lights to the front roof slope and 3 x roof lights to the rear roof slope and conversion of roof from hip to gable end with alterations to fenestration - Retrospective Application.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Retention of single storey rear extension involving demolition of existing extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 1 x rear dormer, 2 x front dormers, installation of 2 x roof lights to the front roof slope and 3 x roof lights to the rear roof slope and conversion of roof from hip to gable end with alterations to fenestration - Retrospective Application.

Officers introduced the application.

The petitioner organiser was in attendance and addressed the Committee.

Since May 2020, no fewer than nine applications had been made for a variety of extensions at ground and first floor level. Officers and Members had been largely resolute in resisting the proposed changes, supported also by the Planning Inspectorate. It appeared now that the applicants had ‘worn down’ officers to the point that there was a weary acceptance that the house now built was acceptable. Whilst the officers’ recommendation was noted, this should not be a done deal.

The applicant and their architect had consistently, and without attempting to engage with neighbours, ridden roughshod over the planning system and policies. By mashing together permitted development and planning permission they had built a house that would not get planning permission in its own right. It was worth noting that this proposal was significantly bigger than applications previously refused by the Council. It was also worth noting that the same architect had adopted very similar tactics at nearby No. 31 St Edmunds Avenue, resulting in a building that did not yet have planning permission and at which there was a live enforcement case.

The petitioner appealed to Members to stand by residents who played fair, respected planning policies, and to not give in to applicants and architects who played the system. By mixing and matching permitted development with planning permission petitioners felt that the development was now out of scale and character with its surroundings. For example, whilst permitted development allowed for the large rear dormer which had been constructed, it only allowed for a four-meter deep ground floor rear extension. The neighbours had said ‘no problem’, they would build the 5.1 meter ground floor extension allowed by the Council through planning permission, ignoring the fact that that the planning permission only allowed a much more modest roof extension. Also, the current large lantern window in the roof above the porch was out of character and petitioners would like to see something in keeping with the original house and scene.

The report stated that the 5.2 meter ground floor extension did not comply with policy but it did not extend beyond the neighbouring properties’ rear walls. In fact, the ground floor protruded further than the neighbours’ rear building lines. This point was a contentious matter for petitioners as since the very beginning of the process petitioners had continuously informed the Council that the architect’s drawings misrepresented the position of the neighbouring properties, along with other discrepancies such as windows being positioned incorrectly for No. 16’s representation, presumably to minimise issues with privacy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19