Agenda item

Single storey front extension, single storey rear extension and raising and enlargement of roof space and existing 4 dormers to create additional habitable roofspace

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED That: the application be refused on the basis of its height, bulk and impact on the street scene.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the addendum. The application sought planning permission for a single storey front extension, single storey rear extension and raising and enlargement of roof space and existing four dormers to create additional habitable roofspace. Members were informed that there were a variety of roof designs in the local area and the application was recommended for approval.

Councillor Richard Mills addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor in objection to the application. Key points raised included:

·         The property was already over-developed;

·         Further extensions would not be in keeping with the street scene;

·         The application sought to raise the roof by 1.2m which was a concern as there was already overlooking to neighbours' properties; especially in St Margarets Avenue;

·         The existing dormers were proportionate to the dwelling whilst the proposed new ones would not be;

·         There had been a number of enforcement orders in relation to the property, some of which were ongoing;

·         The proposed development would result in a three storey building - the original bungalow had been one storey only.

Members expressed concern that the proposal constituted overdevelopment and there would be increased overlooking both to St Margarets Avenue and to the adjacent property - 38a. In response to this, it was confirmed that windows to habitable rooms would look out onto the road or the garden not onto neighbouring properties. Members were advised that Condition no. 5 would ensure that windows facing 38a and 42 Micawber Avenue were obscure glazed and non-opening below a height of 1.8 metres.

Members expressed further concerns regarding the impact on the street scene. It was felt that the increased roof height would not be in keeping with the rest of the road and was out of character. In response to this, Members were informed that there was a property in existence a few doors away which was higher at its peak than the proposed development. However, it was noted that planning permission for this property had been granted in 1988 when standards were different. In response to their questions, Members were advised that there was no requirement for the window in the apex of the roof to be obscure glazed as it looked out over the rear garden. Councillors commented that the garden at no. 38a was already dominated by the neighbouring property and it was felt that the proposed development would be excessive and would create further issues in relation to noise. It was essential that the amenity of residents was protected. In summary, the Committee had considerable concerns regarding matters of overlooking, loss of privacy and impact on the street scene.

Members were reminded by the Legal Advisor and the Head of Planning that, if they were minded to refuse the application, they needed to have robust reasons to do so. The impact on the street scene was a matter that could be argued at an appeal stage.

Members proposed that the application be refused on the basis of its height, bulk and impact on the street scene. This proposal was then moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED That: the application be refused on the basis of its height, bulk and impact on the street scene.