Agenda item

Part two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension, conversion of roofspace to habitable space, erection of open porch to front, part conversion of garage including associated alterations and landscaping to the front and rear (REVISED PLANS).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. The application sought planning permission for a part two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension, conversion of roof space to habitable space, erection of open porch to front, part conversion of garage including associated alteration and landscaping to the front and rear.

Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner spoke in objection of the proposed development and made the following points:

·         This was a revised plans application that included the removal of the balcony and glazing.

·         The plans still indicated the overdevelopment of a four bedroom house to an eight bedroom house.

·         The plans were still virtually identical to the previous application.

·         In the current application, the ground floor print had been reduced by nine square metres, and there was no effort to scale back the double storey element.

·         The two storey side extension remained the same. The proposal was uncongressive, over dominant and detrimental to the street scene.

·         The gap between 7 and 9 Hedgeside road was disputable and they were very close together.

·         The proposed development was like a bulk on the side of a house.

·         The petitioner asked the Committee to note the conversion of the garage which may be converted to a habitable space.

·         The petitioner asked the Committee to consider the grounds for refusal from the previous application and consider whether this application ahd done enough to address the concerns.

·         The application ought to be refused on the grounds that size, scale, bulk and depth was detrimental to the road.

The applicant's agent addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         Since the Committee meeting on 3 October 2017, the agent had clarified any unclear details.

·         The proposal right side alteration to the extension retained the existing 900 mm as measured.

·         The proposed rear extension had been set back to confirm with planning requirements.

·         The applicant/agent had taken on board Members' objections and the balcony to the rear had been removed

·         The porch was now open sided.

·         There were only six bedrooms, five on the first floor and one at ground floor to assist applicant.

·         Minor changes had been made to the front access in the building.

·         There were parking spaces for three cars.

·         The rear garden was quite large and the extension being proposed would retain 90 percent of garden area.

Members considered it to be overdevelopment in terms of size and bulk. The main key revisions were the removal of the balcony and windows and opening of porch.  

The Head of Planning clarified the changes that have been made to the application and drew the Committee's attention to relevant parts of the reports.  The impact had been considered acceptable. The revised application was now fully compliant with policy and within street scene.

Although the proposed developments were big, Members accepted that the application was in policy and there was no reason to refuse it.

Members suggested for conditions to be included in relation to glazing and garage not be able to be converted into a habitable space.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, six in favour and two abstained.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer's recommendation, subject to the additional conditions.