Agenda item

Conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 4 front rooflights and conversion of roof from half-hip to gable end to both sides and single storey rear extension

Recommendation: Refusal

Conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 4 front rooflights and conversion of roof from half-hip to gable end to both sides and single storey rear extension

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the addendum, confirming that reason for refusal number 2 should be deleted from the officer's report. It was confirmed that the application had been deferred from the previous meeting to provide further information regarding the planning status of the roof conversion at 5 Burlington Close.

The Committee was advised that a certificate of lawfulness had been granted for 5 Burlington close in 2015. The dormer erected at no. 5 was of a similar size to that of the proposed conversion at no. 46. Officers had reviewed the work completed at no. 5 and judged that the visual impact was restricted, due to the configuration of the street scene and the property's position relative to neighbouring properties. However, the proposed conversion at no. 46 was not constrained due to neighbouring properties and therefore would be visible to a much larger number of properties, and therefore was considered to cause a greater level of visual harm. Officers therefore recommended that the application be refused.

There was a petition in objection to the application, and the lead petitioner addressed the Committee, citing the dominant appearance of the proposal, overdevelopment of the site, concerns regarding parking and emergency services access, loss of privacy for neighbouring dwellings and the detrimental impact on the surrounding area as reasons for their objection.

The applicant then spoke to the Committee confirming there was also a petition in support of the application. The applicant made reference to the extension at 5 Burlington Close, for which planning permission had been granted, and confirmed that their own proposed extension was of a similar shape and size. Referring to an appeal decision in the Officer's report, it was suggested that the reason for refusal citing the outcome of an inspection was immaterial, as it was referring to a single inspection that took place over 20 years previously. In contrast, the applicant referred to a number of more recent cases that had been granted planning permission on appeal.

The applicant concluded by stating that, according to the Officer's report, it was considered that there would be no significant increase in overshadowing, loss of sunlight, visual intrusion, overdominance or loss of privacy, and that the application was in compliance with various planning policies. Considering the above, the applicant urged the Committee to approve the application.

It was the Committee's view that the application should be refused, as it was not in compliance with the Local Plan and was out of character with the local street scene. In addition, it was felt that Officers had demonstrated that the application was sufficiently different to that of 5 Burlington Close, and there was additional concern that in approving the application, a precedent for future applications within the area would be set.

The Officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, put to a vote, and unanimously agreed.

Resolved -    That the application was refused.