Agenda item

Single storey side/rear extension, canopy structure above existing side entrance door and external alterations to the property, following demolition of existing outbuilding (Revised Description)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Single storey side/rear extension, canopy structure above existing side entrance door and external alterations to the property, following demolition of existing outbuilding (Revised description)

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was noted that party wall matters were not planning considerations as they were covered by other legislation. Members heard that the proposed 3.6m extension was in accordance with Local Plan guidance and would not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The application site was situated in Flood Zone 1 and in a critical drainage area therefore there was a small risk of flooding; however, the footprint was limited and would not exacerbate the flood risk.

A written submission from the lead petitioner was read out to the Committee objecting to the application. Key points included:

·       The petitioner had requested that the WC, utility room and kitchen be sited to the rear of the extension leaving the dining room in its original place; planning officers had not taken this into consideration;

·       The internal design would directly affect the lead petitioner – this was a planning matter not a party wall matter;

·       The proposed WC location and utility room plumbing and drainage would affect the party wall;

·       The proposed design would impact on the next-door neighbour in terms of noise, damp, fire and ventilation;

·       The drains could potentially block and there was the risk of rodents entering both properties;

·       There would be a social issue as noise would emanate from the utility / WC room and kitchen;

·       The drains would run along the party wall.

A written submission was read to the Committee on behalf of the agent. Key points highlighted included:

·       The proposed scheme had been designed to be sensitive to neighbouring occupiers and follow the Council’s design policies;

·       The scale, form and materials would work well with the existing house;

·       The roof form would be sensitive to the existing roof shape;

·       The character of the existing house and the wider area would be preserved;

·       The scheme sought to enhance the internal layout of the house;

·       The proposed extension had been reduced in depth to 3.6m to comply with Council policies;

·       There would be no harmful impact on the garden spaces or habitable room windows to the neighbours – the garden space retained would be well above the 60sqm required at around 120sqm;

·       The objections raised many points which were not material planning considerations and were covered by separate legislation;

·       Flood risk was the only material issue raised by the objector – Council officers had concluded that there would be no additional flood risks from the extension and that the risk of flooding in the area was low;

·       The proposed works were to accommodate a growing family – not to be used as an HMO or to maximise development value.

Members noted that it would be possible to provide services without the involvement of party wall legislation.

The Committee was pleased to note that the applicant had worked with planning officers to produce a proposal which was sympathetic to the neighbour’s property and complied with Local Plan guidance. Members suggested that perhaps more soundproofing could be included to help minimise noise and address some of the petitioner’s concerns.

Members noted that it should be possible for the applicant to utilise the existing input point for water and exit point for waste; a new set of drains would not be required.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.