Agenda item

Single storey front extension, single story side/rear extension and conversion of roofspace to include 2 x side dormers and conversion of roof from hip to gable end

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED That: the application be refused.

Single storey front extension, single storey side/rear extension and conversion of roof space to include 2 side dormers and conversion and extension of rear of roof from hip to gable end.

Councillor Janet Duncan had expressed a non-pecuniary interest in this item therefore did not participate in the debate or the vote. Officers introduced the application noting that the application site was within an Area of Special Local Character (ASLC). It was felt that the proposed development would not be in keeping with the existing property or with adjoining properties and would be excessively large. The impact on adjacent occupiers was deemed to be unacceptable.

Written representations had been received from the lead petitioner and were read out to the Committee. Key points raised included:

·         The proposed side/rear extension would be detrimental to the amenity of the adjoining occupier at no.8 in terms of loss of light, outlook and overdominance;

·         The proposed side addition would result in development spanning almost the entire depth of the property. Any roof / guttering maintenance would necessitate accessing the neighbouring property at no.8;

·         The current side extension was a 4.5 inch single brick lean to with a plastic roof; not an established structure;

·         The overall development would not be subordinate to the original dwelling, engulfing the original built form, resulting in an adverse impact on the character, appearance and quality of the street scene;

·         There was only space for one car to the front, not two as suggested in the planning officer’s report;

·         The rear development would reduce the size of the rear garden which would be inappropriate for a 5-bed house.

Written representations had also been received from the agent and were read out to the Committee. Key points raised included:

·         The street scene surrounding the application site was predominantly residential with a mix of properties of various sizes and designs;

·         There were large double storey properties opposite the application site therefore the impact of the proposed development would be negligible;

·         The extension was located outside flood zones;

·         The Environment Agency had raised no objections to the application and the development site was outside the 8m buffer zone to the river;

·         Although part of the proposed design did not fully comply with Council guidelines, each application should be considered on its merits. The proposal complied with guidelines in terms of its height which would not exceed the height of the existing property;

·         A recent application at no. 45 Frays Avenue had been approved – in this case a bungalow had been demolished to allow for a double storey extension. The proposed scheme at no.10 was more environmentally friendly and a less disruptive option than demolishing and rebuilding.

Written representations had been received from Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting and were read out to the Committee. Key points raised included:

·         The proposed development would not be in keeping with the ASLC due to its size, bulk and dominating appearance. It would have a devastating impact on the character and appearance of the ASLC;

·         The proposal would be out of character with the low rise development characteristic of the Garden City;

·         The development would have a negative impact on neighbours; particularly no.8;

·         It would set an unacceptable precedent and result in further erosion of the ASLC;

·         It would fail to remain subordinate to the original building;

·         There would be a loss of light and outlook to no.8 Frays Avenue;

·         The amenity space would be insufficient for a 5-bedroom property;

·         The roof alterations and extensions would not harmonise with the original building;

·         The front amenity space was too small to accommodate 2 cars.

Councillor Stuart Mathers has also submitted written representations echoing the comments made by Councillor Jan Sweeting. These were read out to the Committee.

In response to requests for clarification from the Committee, it was confirmed that it would not be feasible to add another reason for refusal in relation to parking since two cars could be accommodated.

Members had no further queries and felt the proposal was wholly unacceptable.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED That: the application be refused.