Agenda item

Single storey front, side and rear extensions, raising and enlargement of roof to create first floor with habitable roofspace to include 2 rear dormers, 2 side rooflights, vehicular crossover to front involving demolition of existing front, side and rear elements.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Single storey front, side and rear extensions, raising and enlargement of roof to create a first floor with habitable roofspace to include 2 rear dormers, 2 side rooflights, vehicular crossover to front involving demolition of existing front, side and rear elements.

Officers introduced the applications, which was for front, side and rear extensions for a detached bungalow. The proposal was to raise the height of the roof to allow for the conversion of the bungalow to a two storey dwelling. There would also be single storey front, side and rear extensions and the conversion of the roof to a habitable roof, which would include two rear dormers. A petition had been received in objection to the proposals. The main issues to be considered were the design and appearance of the development, its impact on the street scene and the impact on adjoining properties. The application site was located between a bungalow to the south and a two storey property to the north. Oak Avenue currently contained a mix of two storey houses and bungalows. Therefore, the principle of two storey buildings in the road was not disputed.

The proposed front elevation reflected the design of other two storey properties in the street and the appearance was considered to be in keeping with the area. The depth of the proposed extensions would not breach the 45 degree line of sight from the nearest habitable window of the neighbouring property. There were no windows in the side elevations of either of the two neighbouring properties. The proposed extension would extend beyond the rear elevation of adjoining properties by one metre at single storey level, so would not impact on either of these properties. The dormer windows complied with Council standards. The proposals were not considered to have an adverse impact on the character of the property or the surrounding area or on the amenity of the adjoining properties. Accordingly, approval was recommended.

A petition had been submitted in objection to the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         There had been a similar application for an extension at 34A Oak Avenue in 2003. This application had been refused by Committee and had been dismissed upon appeal. The refusal had been due to a lack of privacy.

·         A subsequent application that had included obscured windows had been refused in 2004. These decisions had set a precedent. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was quoted, which related to respect for one's private and family life.

·         In relation to the proposed crossover, the officer report stated that the proposed crossover would be installed on a residential road that did not have a significantly high influx of traffic or vehicular movement. However, there were already high traffic volumes in the morning and mid afternoon due to children being dropped off at a nearby nursery. A local cricket club also generated significant traffic on weekend afternoons.

In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the applicant addressed the meeting in response to the petition and made the following points:

·         The application submitted had taken into account all relevant planning considerations and pre planning advice had been sought twice in order to minimise any objection from neighbours.

·         Extension of the property would future proof it and it enable it to accommodate their children and grandparents who would be moving in.

·         There had been a number of previous applications from other householders in the street which had contributed to an increase in traffic.

·         The crossover would not cause any difficulties for neighbouring properties and would enable visitor parking to be accommodated.

·         Upstairs windows overlooking neighbouring properties would be obscured.

·         None of the neighbours to the right hand side of the applicant's property had objected to the proposals. All the objections had come from residents on the left hand side, who would be least affected by the proposals.

Members felt that there would be grounds to reject the proposals if the property was located between existing bungalows but as it was not, it was felt that there was no alternative but to approve the plans.

It was requested that where proposals would result in a change to the footprint of an existing property, that an overshadowing diagram be provided, even if this confirmed that there would be no overshadowing. Officers agreed that increased use would be made of overshadowing diagrams but noted that the application currently under consideration was not one where the provision of such a diagram was likely to assist Members.

The recommendation for approval was proposed, seconded and upon being put to a vote, was agreed unanimously.

Resolved: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.