Agenda item

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension, raising of ridge height and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 4 side roof lights, 1 front roof light and 1 rear roof light and creation of basement.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED That:

1)    The application be approved;

2)    Delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to word an additional condition in relating to ground stability.

Part two-storey, part single storey side/rear extension, raising of ridge height and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 4 side roof lights, 1 front roof light and creation of basement.

Officers presented the report and highlighted the information in the addendum. The application was recommended for approval. It was noted that planning permission for the extensions had been granted in November 2018 but the request to build the basement was new. In relation to the basement, it was confirmed that a full flood risk assessment had been submitted by the applicant and reviewed by Council officers. No objections had been raised. It was considered that the development would not impact negatively on adjacent properties and would not harm the appearance of the area. The proposed development complied with the Council’s basement policy.

A petitioner representing the Gate Hill Residents’ Association spoke in objection to the application. Key points highlighted included:

·         The width of the basement (approximately 85 sqm) would exceed the full width of the property; this was contrary to the Council’s basement policy;

·         The two light wells to the side of the property were contrary to policy which stated that ‘basement light wells will not be acceptable at the front or side of a property’. Said light wells would be contrary to the established character of the Gate Hill Farm Estate;

·         In relation to the impact on the neighbour at no.19, the excavation works were likely to damage the screening hedge between the two properties thereby harming the amenity of no.19;

·         The separate external side entrance to access the basement was a cause for concern as the basement could potentially be used as, or adapted to, a fully self-contained unit. No Condition had been proposed to ensure this would not happen in the future.

·         A surface water and flood risk assessment had been prepared by Ambiental Environmental but no specific site investigation had been provided to it on the geology and infiltration potential. Moreover, the ground investigation study referred to was not conducted specifically on the site in question but was conducted on a lower nearby property;

·         The excavation works could result in the undermining of foundations to nearby properties;

·         A site specific new report was requested.

The agent spoke in support of the application. Key points raised included:-

·         The house was one of the smallest on the estate and the living room was particularly small;

·         Even with the addition of the extensions agreed by planning in 2018, space would still be tight therefore a rear-facing basement was proposed;

·         The basement would not be vast and the side entrance was purely a means of escape to comply with building regulations – a sub-let was not planned;

·         The basement area would be used as a family living space incorporating TV area, children’s play area and small utility;

·          Neighbours to both sides were consulted but no.15 had been empty for 2 years;

·         The extensions would go ahead with or without the basement. Steps would be taken to minimize the impact on neighbours;

·         Ambiental Environmental were world renowned experts and their flood report had been accepted by the planning authority;

·         The site from which data was taken was only 35 feet away so still relevant and was lower so the water table at the actual site would be better;

·         No problems for the water table were noted;

·         Structural engineers had been appointed and would submit detailed designs to the Council as required if the application was approved;

·         The basement width was 9.3m and there was no risk to the hedge as it would be 3m away from it;

·         The light wells would not be incongruous;

·         A petition in support of the application had been put together in 24 hours.

Members enquired whether structural drawings could have been submitted to officers before the Committee took place. It was confirmed that these were expensive but would be produced if permission was granted. It was expected that a Condition would be added to show that the information was sound.

Ward Councillor Morgan spoke in objection to the application highlighting concerns regarding the width of the proposed basement, which was wider than the foundations of the house – was in contravention of Local Plan Part 2 policy. It was claimed that the side lights were also in contravention of new basement policy. Refusal was requested.

The Head of Planning was requested to comment on the claims regarding the Local Plan Part 2. Members were informed that the policy regarding Basement Developments was set out on page 41 of the agenda pack. Many of the petitioners’ and Ward Councillor’s statements related to the information in the policy preamble rather than to the policy itself. It was confirmed that, in this case, the proposed basement met the criteria in the policy. Flood and Water Management issues would be resolved through Conditions, as could the requirement for a ground instability report.

Councillors requested that, in future, a full structural report and drawings be submitted to the Committee prior to the planning meeting where possible. The Head of Planning commented that this was not standard practice as stability reports were expensive and would only be requested once planning permission had been granted. Members requested clarification regarding the large number of Conditions set out in the report. It was explained that five or six Conditions was not considered excessive – in this case there were also two unique Conditions regarding trees.

Committee Members commented that they preferred to have as much evidence as possible to enable them to make informed decisions. It was agreed that delegated authority would be granted to the Head of Planning to draft an additional Condition regarding ground stability.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with 5 Members voting in favour and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED That:

1)    The application be approved;

2)    Delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to word an additional Condition relating to ground stability.