Agenda item

Conversion of roofspace to habitable use involving raising of ridge height and a front and a rear dormer.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refusal.

Conversion of roofspace to habitable use involving raising of ridge height and a front and a rear dormer.

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for refusal. Delegated authority was requested to amend the refusal reasons to include the impact on the conservation area and the grade 2 listed buildings.

A petition in support of the application was submitted by the applicant. The agent on behalf of the application addressed the Committee and gave a summary of a previous application that was put before Members. That scheme was refused as aspects of the proposal would have had a negative impact on the setting of the street scene. Since then, following Committee comments and the points made in the refusal notice, a number of further amendments to the application had been made including reducing the scale, mass and bulk. The agent explained that the dormer size had been reduced from 10.3m to 6.342m and the gable ends from either side of the roof had also been removed. A fully hipped aspect had been introduced following Committee comments. The dormer was now 1.5 m shorter than the adjoining property. The property at 29 Manor Lane was 1.5 m wider than the proposal being put forward and included a Juliet balcony but the scheme had been granted under permitted development. It was highlighted that this already set a harmful precedent. It was questioned why the permitted development rights were not removed by an article 4 direction. The scheme addressed previous concerns raised and the height of the house had been kept as low as possible in compliance with building regulations.

It was noted that adjustments had been made to the application in terms of height. It was explained that the adjoining property was developed under permitted development rights, granted by government permission and there was no control over it. The application before the Committee needed to be assessed on its visual impact and the impact on adjoining properties, in addition to taking into account the Council’s policies. This application was in contrary to the Council’s policies.

Some Members considered that the applicant had taken steps to address previous concerns raised by the Committee and it was noted that the street scene on Manor Lane was varied and each application needed to be considered on its own merits.

Although the applicant had made a number of efforts to make the application acceptable, the development in question was under the Council’s control and not in compliance was policies.

The Committee moved, seconded the officer’s recommendation with delegated authority to the Head of Planning to amend the refusal reason to include the impact on the conservation area and the grade 2 listed buildings, and upon being put to a vote, there were seven votes in favour and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused and delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to amend the refusal reason to include the impact on the conservation area and the grade 2 listed buildings.