Issue - meetings

Erection of a single storey rear extension and double storey side extensions to both sides of property following the demolition of existing garage and removal of two chimney stacks (amended description) 

Recommendation: Approval 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of a single storey rear extension and double storey side extensions to both sides of property following the demolition of existing garage and removal of two chimney stacks (amended description)

Councillor Roy Chamdal had expressed a non-pecuniary interest in the application therefore left the room and did not participate in the debate or voting for this item.

Officers introduced the application noting that the site lay within conservation areas and an Article 4 zone, which restricted permitted development rights for small HMOs. Members heard that the design complied with Council policy, being subordinate and well-scaled, and similar extensions existed nearby. A daylight and sunlight report confirmed no significant impact on neighbouring habitable rooms, particularly at No. 7, whose windows faced the proposed development. Planning officers supported the application as it aligned with design and amenity policies, and it was recommended for approval.

A petition had been received in objection to the application. The lead petitioner was present and addressed the Committee Members highlighting the following key points:

·         Residents at number 7 had expressed concerns that the initial plans resembled an HMO-style property, which would not be in keeping with the street’s character.

·         They noted that the applicant was a property developer and believed the design was squeezed between neighbouring homes.

·         The planning report was criticised for focusing solely on number 2 The Meads, which was not a fair or representative comparison due to its unique location and spacious surroundings.

·         It was highlighted that only one of eight properties had double-storey extensions on both sides, making number 2 an outlier.

·         The proposed application site, was located at the bottom of the close with neighbours on both sides, including number 7, which faced it directly at a 90° angle.

·         Concerns were raised about the impact on light and shadowing, with reported losses of 10% in the office and 7% in the bedroom at number 7.

·         The proposal was said to disregard Council policy requiring detached houses to be set back at least one metre.

·         Number 4 was cited as a better example of considerate planning, being set three metres back and fitting the street’s character.

·         Doubts were expressed about the credibility of the daylight and sunlight report, citing inconsistent data and lack of professional accreditation.

·         A request was made for the Council to consider safeguards against future HMO or subletting developments and to review the proposal for partial approval due to its impact on number 7.

·         Visual representations were used to argue that the proposed development would appear as an oversized block squeezed into a small space, disrupting the street scene.

Members sought further clarification from the petitioners regarding shadowing and the impact of the proposal on daylight and sunlight at their property. The petitioner acknowledged that shadowing already occurred due to the existing structure and argued that adding a double-storey extension would worsen it, potentially covering most of their house. While they appreciated the neighbour’s intent to improve their property, they felt the proposed development was unfair and inconsistent with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92