Agenda item

Two-storey rear extension, single-storey front extension, conversion of garage to habitable use to include alterations to front elevation, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, six rooflights and alterations to roof, including raising of ridge height.

Recommendation: Approval

Two-storey rear extension, single-storey front extension, conversion of garage to habitable use to include alterations to front elevation, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, six rooflights and alterations to roof, including raising of ridge height.

Officers introduced the application and noted that, responding to comments submitted by the Gatehill Residents’ Association, the impact of the 45 degree line of sight would not prevent the neighbouring property at 65 Elgood Avenue from receiving adequate day and sunlight.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the Gatehill Residents’ Association, and noted that the application was made in an area of special local character and that there were no comments in the report from the Council’s Conservation Officer. The Committee heard that the application included seven alterations to the dwelling, which together would transform the house and this would be contrary to policy. The petitioner noted that 95% of the width of the plot would be filled by the dwelling, and the proposed increase in plot size would create an overdominant dwelling. The Committee was informed that the stepped down pattern and roof height would lead to the dwelling to encroach on the neighbouring property at 65 Elgood Avenue, and 61 Elgood Avenue would be deprived of light in the living room. The petitioner concluded that while the cumulative effect of the alteration would change the appearance of the house, but the roof height change would affect the street scene and lead to the premises becoming overbearing on the street scene and encroaching on neighbouring properties.

The applicant addressed the Committee and stated that the additional living space was to provide for his extended family. Members heard that the applicant worked with the Planning Department and engaged with the Gateshill Residents’ Association to incorporate their ideas for the application where possible. The Committee heard that the street scene was very diverse, and the applicant wanted to adhere to policies, and based plans on similar changes to the street scene where a precedence had already been set. The applicant stated that the proposals were not detrimental ot the local amenity and harmonised with the street scene, as the dormer windows and hanging roof were not original to this property. Members heard that the application does not present the loss of any material amenity for neighbours, and the proposed hip to gable roof would help neighbouring properties receive sunlight.

Ward Councillor for Northwood Hills, Councillor John Morgan, stated that the application was for a big increase with a 56% increase in roof height. The Committee heard that there would be overhanging to 65 Elgood Avenue, and the plot would be just one metre from the boundary wall. Councillor Morgan noted that the application was overdominant and overbearing and should be considered for refusal. Responding to questioning from the Committee, Councillor Morgan noted that the 56% increase in roof height was a figure quoted by the GRA.

Members stated concerns regarding the ridge height of the roof, and the impact of shadowing on neighbouring properties, as well as concerns regarding the overdominance of the plot by virtue of its bulk in an area of special local character.

The Head of Planning, Transportation and Recycling stated that the Conservation Officer was involved in the application process, but did not have any comments on the application.

The Committee noted that the roof was proposed to increase in height, but did come in at the sides, and there were concerns that the proposed roof was too high. Members stated that there were other homes in the area of a similar height, and were informed by officers that No 61 had a maximum ridge height of 8.8m, No 38 opposite the site had a maximum ridge height of 9m, and the proposed ridge height at No 63 was 8.95m, so any differences in height were marginal.

Members stated that they understood the concerns with the application, and height, mass and bulk remained issues.

The officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded. Upon being put to a vote, there were five votes in favour of the recommendation and three votes against.

RESOLVED: That the application was approved.