Agenda item

Raising and enlargement of roof to create habitable roof space to include 1 x rear dormer, 1 x front dormer and conversion of roof from hipped to gable end

Recommendations: Refusal

 RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the raising and enlargement of roof to create habitable roof space to include 1 x rear dormer, 1 x front dormer and conversion of roof from hipped to gable end. Officers made a recommendation for refusal

The agent/architect for the application addressed the Committee. Members noted the photographs submitted by the agent that were circulated to all parties prior to the meeting. A summary of the key points made are detailed below.

The agent/ architect stated that they were also the architect for 29 Manor Lane and the petition specifically raised the fact that 29 Manor Lane was owned by a Councillor. The applicant intended to live in the house for the foreseeable future and planned to grow in the house to accommodate all family.  The petition had been signed by 22 signatories who were all nearby residents, and they shared the concerns that the local authority was able to approve a similar scheme at 29 Manor Lane but made a recommendation for refusal for a similar scheme at 31. It was submitted that this petition had not been considered in light of the recently approved scheme. The scheme, context and constraints were the same and amendments had been made following consultation with planning officers. With the recent construction at 29 the bungalow was now subordinate and the agent highlighted this on the photographs. This has created darker colder rooms at the ground floor which are now overshadowed.

It was submitted that the applicant was seeking to improve the quality of family life by moving the bedroom from the ground floor to the first floor, which would still remain as a bungalow. Introducing windows would also bring in more natural daylight. It was submitted that the property would not become a two storey house, but a shallow style bungalow similar to number 29. The officer stated that the dormer at number 29 was approved under permitted development rights therefore its impact was on the adjacent fielding and historical setting could not be considered. The impact on neighbouring properties would be little. The effect on number 31 was considered and the dormer size was reduced. Overall, the proposal created a substantially smaller building to surrounding sites, the house and rear garden at number 31 is overlooked by surrounding buildings and is subordinate, the proposals are no different to a number of other local properties. The applicant sought a recommendation for approval as it would improve the quality of life and would improve overshadowing caused by the dominant side extension at number 29. The Committee was asked to look at the application, not on in the light of planning policies, but also in light of context, site, conditions and other recent developments.

The Head of Planning clarified the position in regards to planning permission for 28 Manor Lane. In summary, it was highlighted that the dormer was built above the bungalow and amounted to permitted lawful development, had it been a larger dormer it would have been a different situation. The dormer being proposed was 10.2 metres wide as this was not the same as the dormer that fell under permitted development at 29 Manor Lane, hence the concerns regarding the visual appearance of the dormer.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that this was a matter of judgement about the impact of the gable wall end.

Members were mindful that if a development in the nature of a two storey building was being created, they should be a distance of 15 metres in accordance with planning policies. Members noted that in this case the distance was 8.6m and considered that this was just too close. The hipped roof would become a substantial feature.

Members noted that the recommendation appeared to be unfair because of what had been built next door. However, that application had different conditions and this application would be overbearing on number 33. With some changes to design this may have been approved.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed for the two reasons stated in the officer’s report.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation.