Agenda item

Part two storey, part first floor rear extension to include creation of  basement space for storage, single storey front and side extension to attached garage, involving demolition of existing rear conservatory and front porch.

Part two storey, part first floor rear extension to include creation of basement space for storage, single storey front and side extension to attached garage, involving demolition of existing rear conservatory and front porch.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

Members were aware that the site was located within an Area of Special Local Character.  Members who attended the site visit observed the significant slope to the road and significant changes of level and the location of the foundations which were clearly visible.  Officers had measured out and confirmed key distance for those on site.

Members were aware that the development was identical to a scheme previously approved in 2005. The main change visible from the street scene would be the replacement of a single storey pitched roof element with a wider single storey flat roofed element.  Officers did not consider that this alteration would have an unacceptable appearance within the area. Members noted that objections received had placed much emphasis on Policy BE22 of the UDP; however the policy related only to two storey extensions and was not relevant.

Members noted that the proposed extensions were well separated and a privacy screen would stop any overlooking.  Members viewed shadow diagrams which had regard to the change in levels.  Accordingly, the proposal had no unacceptable impact on light with regard to this property when considered against the BRE guidance.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting and the agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner objecting to the proposals made the following points:

·         There were serious errors and mistakes contained within the officers' report.

·         Work had begun in February 2014 and had continued despite no planning application being submitted until June 2014.

·         A 'no party wall notice' had been served and the developer had apparently ignored his legal responsibilities under the ACT.

·         The approval of planning permission in 2005 was based on plans wrongly showing separations of 1.5m to the front and rear boundaries of No 42 Copse Wood.

·         Because of the misleading plans of 2005, any reference by the officer to approval of the scheme in 2005 should be disregarded.

·         Plans submitted in June 2014 were a duplicate of those submitted in 2005.

·         The planning officer agreed the plans were incorrect and requested new plans which were only received on the 9 September 2014.

·         A series of solicitor's letter were obtained dated July 1993 confirming the boundary fence of No 42 Copse Wood was accurate and was the boundary.

·         An email received from the case officer confirmed approval was given in 2005 for invalid drawings.

·         There was no explanation why the developer submitted wrong drawings in 2005 and again in 2014.

·         There was no front south west elevation extension drawing to the correct boundary line though the planning officer maintained there was.

·         The front of the garage extension would only leave a distance of 0.28m from the boundary of No 42 Copse Wood invalidating BE22 for a separation of 1.5m.

·         The rear of the garage extension would abut the boundary of No 42 Copse Wood.

·         The case officer stated that no encroachment would take place which was untrue as the eaves and gutter would overhang the boundary of No 42 Copse Wood.

·         The large flat roof would be detrimental to the street scene.

·         A previous application submitted in March 2014 had been refused due to overshadowing of No 38 Copse Wood, visual intrusion, loss of sunlight and loss of outlook.

·         No water management had been considered.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

·         Did not want to go over issues which had already been addressed.

·         Resubmission was requested due to enforcement issues and was felt the most appropriate way to address previous concerns raised.

·         Had cooperated with planning officers and relevant requirements.

·         The motivation for the extension remained, which was so a severely disabled resident could continue to live in their home.

The Chairman highlighted to the Committee that the motivation for the extension was not a planning matter.  Officers explained that enforcement notice had not been served; however, this was not a material fact in consideration as the Council had to identify harm which had not been found in this case.

The legal advisor present explained the party wall act was also not a material planning consideration.  Officers were aware that there had been previous boundary disputes relating to the application, however, officers had checked the red line with land registry.

Members questioned whether the eaves and gutters would overhang in the neighbouring property.  Officers informed the Committee that there was nothing to suggest that overhanging would take place.  Members requested that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to reword informative 4 to ensure that all parts of the development were within the application site boundaries and no development whatsoever encroaches onto neighbouring properties beyond the application site.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved - That the application be approved as per the officers' report.