Agenda item

Single storey side/rear extension.

Recommendation : Approval

Single storey side/rear extension.

Officers introduced the report advising the committee of the main points and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting making the following points:-

• There were a number of inaccuracies in the plans and the purpose of the application was flawed.
• The measurements on the plans differ from what was actually in place and they should be accurate.
• The application site sits on a prominent T junction, which was a turning point for many cars.
• It was felt that a 3 bed house would become a 5 bedroom house
• A car parked on the drive of the neighbouring property would be unable to open the passenger door of their car if the extension was approved.
• There would be a loss of light to the adjoining property.
• The proposal to extend the existing garage forward would be over-dominant and out of character with the street scene.
• The loss of the garage would result in a reduction of parking in an already heavily parked area. 
• There were concerns as to how the demolition of the garage party wall would be carried out and how it would be replaced.
• The patio of the adjoining property had already been damaged and if the extension was allowed this may cause further damage. 
• Farmlands was within in a flood plain risk area.
• There were currently drainage issues within the area and no details had been provided regarding the soak-away and yard gully to prevent the driveway and garage of the neighbouring property from flooding.
• It was felt that the committee did not have sufficient time to consider the concerns raised in the petition to make a decision and asked that the application be deferred.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution the agent addressed the meeting making the following points:-

• Positive feedback had been received from officers in relation to the proposal.
• The proposed design complied with planning guidelines.
• There was no basis for the objections raised on loss of amenity.
• There would be sufficient amenity space remaining as the garden was the longest in the street.
• The garage was dead space and the conversion to a habitable space would make it more useable than what existed currently.
• The proposal was not visible from the street and would not affect nearby properties.
• The front extension does not compromise the off street parking situation, as there would still be sufficient space for 2 cars.
• The proposed 3 metre extension at the rear was permitted development.
• There were legal requirements in regard to noise and disturbance.
• The design of the proposal was not detrimental or overdevelopment.
• Highlighted the need for the extension due to the expanding family and to enable them to remain and enjoy the property long term.
• The committee was asked to agree the officer’s recommendation for approval.

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

• The petitioner and the applicant had made a number of good points.
• The committee was asked that before they made a decision on the application to defer the application for a site visit.

A member asked whether sufficient parking was being provided for the proposal as this had been raised as a concern.

Officers advised the committee that as the width of the garage was less than 3 metres, in reality there was only one parking space. The requirement for the proposed extension was for one space, which was shown on the plans. Officers also advised the committee that the proposed single storey extension could be built under permitted development rights. 

A member stated that he could not see the need for a site visit as the proposed extension was just above what would be able to be built under permitted development rights.

In answer to a question raised in relation to the extension not being set in 1 metre the committee was advised that this was only required for 2 storey extensions.  The issue in relation to the opening of a passenger door was not a right and could not be taken into consideration.

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

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