Agenda item

Two storey side extension and first floor rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to the addition of a condition prohibiting further extensions and the strengthening of condition 7.

Two storey side extension and first floor rear extension

Officers introduced the report and addendum, and confirmed that the application was recommended for approval, inclusive of the changes to condition 2 as set out in the addendum.

A petitioner’s objections to the application were detailed, key points of which included:

·         The proposed roof raising and enlargement will result in a loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 19. The officer has proposed a condition that no further windows can be inserted into the walls facing No 15 and No 19. It is requested that, if approved, the application be conditioned to prohibit windows in the roof facing No 19 to preserve their privacy.

·         The width and depth of the proposal is a manifest over-development of the site and the enormous, bulky proposed roof shape bears no correlation to the original property, being totally out of keeping by its over-dominance.

·         There is no condition to prevent the proposed property being subdivided to form additional units or used in multiple occupation. The previous approved and built extension reference 29754/APP/2008/3569 contains a planning condition that, ‘The development hereby approved shall not be subdivided to form additional dwelling units or used in multiple occupation without a further express permission from the Local Planning Authority’ to ensure that the property remained a single dwelling unit. It is requested that, if the application is approved, you carry the previous condition over to ensure that this vast property is not subdivided to form additional dwelling units or used as an HMO.

·         It is requested that, if approved, a condition be added to ensure that the boundary treatment remains typical of this Area of Special Local Character complying with policy DMHB 6 iii). (The boundaries are currently high hedges, no walls or closed board fences are allowed.)

The agent for the applicant submitted detail supporting the application, key points of which included:

·         Based on the planner’s feedback to the pre-application, the current submission has omitted the following:

o   Second floor loft space accommodation

o   A raised ridge height to the apex of the main roof

o    Two half-octagon bay windows

o   A crown roof over the extended part of the property

o   A projecting canopy over the proposed new front entrance

o   A reduction in the width of the extension from 7.5m to 6.7m

o   More recently the design of the front façade has been modified to allow for a single storey window over the entrance, and not a two storey feature as before.

·           With regard to the petitioner’s assertion that DMHD1 c) i states that ‘side extensions should not exceed half the width of the original property’. The Gateshill Residents Association (GRA) has wrongly construed ‘property’ to mean ‘house’. Dimensionally, the original width of the property is 13.4 metres, and the proposed extension is 6.7m. The ratio of the proposed extension is 50%.

·           The GRA states that, ‘the current proposal is to extend [at the rear]… 6 metres beyond the original house’. However, this is incorrect. The proposed extension is level with the rear of the original house, and does not project beyond it.

·           The GRA asserts that the proposed extension is out of character with the streetscape, both in terms of the proposed choice of building materials and in its size and form. The building materials are stated as ‘to match existing,’ so this first point is incorrect, and the original scheme has been amended as above in order to allay such concerns. It will be noted that many of the properties on Woodside road have already been heavily extended.

·           In terms of proportions, the host property/proposed extension is compatible and commensurate with its neighbour, with the gap between the two properties being more than 8 metres apart.

·           One of the main reasons that the applicant is undertaking this project is to enable his disabled septuagenarian father to live with the rest of his family in the same house. He needs 24 hour care and for all of his accommodation to be on the ground floor. This need is provided for in the Local Plan Part 2, under section A1.17, which calls for ‘Annexes designed specifically for the use of disabled or dependent elderly family members… located on the ground floor and be fully accessible’.

·           The applicants offered to meet a representative of the GRA to discuss this proposal; unfortunately, this offer was declined.

Officers confirmed that any concerns relating to potential subdivision or HMOs could be allayed, as any such subdivision would require further planning permission.

Members discussed the application, and were supportive of the application, subject to the addition of a condition prohibiting further extensions, and the strengthening of condition 7, which related to additional windows and doors.

The officer’s recommendation, with the additional conditions as set out above, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to the addition of a condition prohibiting further extensions, and the strengthening of condition 7.