Agenda item

First floor rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred for a site visit.

First floor rear extension.

Officers introduced the report, which related to a first floor rear extension on a detached two storey dwelling. This was located on the west side of Moorfield Road. There had been a number of previous applications at the site and construction had taken place to extend the property. Applications to increase the height of the building to two storeys had previously been approved by the Committee and most of the works carried out had been undertaken as permitted development.

The application was for the construction of a first floor extension above a previously constructed single storey element. This would have a depth of 3.6 metres and a width of 6.6 metres. This would be less than half the width of the existing extended dwelling. The proposed design of the extension was in character with the existing building. It was noted that the dwelling was within a flood zone three. The Council's flooding experts had been consulted and had raised no objections. Accordingly, the application was recommended for approval.

A petition had been submitted by the applicant in objection to the application. Councillor Richard Mills addressed the Committee on behalf of the petitioner and made the following points:

·         A number of applications had previously been submitted in relation to the property.

·         The development overpowered and was overbearing and out of keeping with the small and tight road that it was within.

·         The property had previously been referred to as a "Lego" building, with bricks and extensions being added on wherever the applicant found some space.

·         A number of extensions had been added to what had originally been a bungalow.

·         Approval of the current plans would amount to giving permission to a bigger dwelling than that which had previously been refused.

·         Only five neighbours had been consulted in relation to the proposals, all of whom had objected.

·         Local residents had needed to put together multiple petitions in objection to the various applications at the site.

·         Cllr. Mills did not completely agree with officers that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on neighbours.

·         The site plan was incorrect as it did not reflect all the work undertaken at the site.

·         It was frustrating that the applicant had not engaged with officers in order to understand which schemes were likely to be viable at the site.

·         The site was within a flood risk area, so the more development that took place, the bigger the likely impact.

·         It was requested that the application be refused, but that as a minimum, the Committee should undertake a site visit.

Neither the applicant nor their agent wished to address the Committee in relation to the application.

The Chairman advised that the Committee should consider the building as it currently stood and the application currently before Committee, rather than what had previously been at the site.

Members asked for confirmation of the number of proposed bedrooms at the property, the gaps between buildings, the number of car park spaces and for clarification of whether the extensions built so far all had permitted development rights. Officers advised that permitted development rights had been used to build the rear extension. The growth in footprint of the premises had all occurred due to the permitted development rights that the property had. The gap between the property and neighbouring properties was one metre on one side and considerably more on the other. The property had a garage which Members had previously conditioned should be retained as a garage. Parking provision was compliant with relevant policies. It was confirmed that maximum permissible parking provision for the premises was two spaces, which the property had. The proposals did not suggest any changes to the existing parking provision. It was also confirmed that the garage was large enough for a car to be parked in it.

Some Members felt that a site visit would be beneficial in order to help them to more fully understand the possible impact of the proposals on the area. Other Members were not convinced of the benefit of undertaking a site visit as they felt that there were not any valid planning grounds for considering refusal of the application.

Officers advised that should the Committee feel that the development was becoming so significant that it was out of character with the area, that this could be a ground for refusal. However, the difficulty was that the original bungalow had also been out of character with the area and the previous extensions were such that the dwelling was now considered to be in character with the other properties in the street. In order to be able to refuse the application on the basis of the impact on the local area, it would be necessary to evidence the harm that this was causing. Officers considered that the application was policy compliant and would have very limited impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

The proposal to defer the application for a site visit was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred for a site visit to take place.