Agenda item

Part two storey, part single storey rear extension, raising of ridge height and conversion of roof from hip to gable ends with gable end windows involving alterations to elevations.

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the report, which was seeking approval for part two storey, part single storey rear extension, raising of ridge height and conversion of roof from hip to gable ends with gable end windows involving alterations to elevations. Officers considered that the proposed development, by reason of its size, scale, bulk, depth and design, including the disproportionate roof detail, represented an unduly intrusive and incongruous form of development, which failed to harmonise with the character and appearance of the original dwelling and the wider area. For this reason, the application was recommended for approval.

By way of written submission, a petitioner objecting to the application made the following points:

·         The application sought approval for a form of residential development that was disproportionately large and out of keeping with the adjacent houses, with the applicant wishing to raise the roof and extend the property some 8.4m beyond its original building line (excluding the conservatory).

·         The proposed extension was overbearing and unbalanced, having a disproportionately large roof with new roof lights, three in the front, 2 in the back and one at each side.

·         The roof line and proposed rendered finishes were out of keeping with the street scene, whilst the inclusion of side windows was likely to affect the privacy for adjoining properties. 

·         The significantly enlarged second floor roof space was identified in the plans as being for ‘storage’, but had clearly been designed for future conversion as habitable rooms.

·         The applicant had provided the land registry title plan, but not a site location plan showing the development in context. By using the Land Registry Title plan from 1957 instead of an Ordnance Survey plan, the potential impacts to surrounding buildings had been significantly underplayed as many of the neighbouring properties were not built at the time.

·         Contrary to the applicant’s claims, the house was already very visible from High Road Eastcote, Cheney Street and Birchmead Avenue, and the Eastcote Conservation Area. It was suggested that the Council request a townscape assessment to test the degree of impact to the setting of these conservation areas to demonstrate there is no impact.

·         It was requested that the application be refused, but if approved, residents requested that  the application be conditioned to ensure that storage space was not converted to habitable rooms. The position of the windows and potential to overlook neighbouring properties could not be tested in planning terms if the proposed use is ‘storage’, and once built, its future conversion could be carried out under Building Regulations approval, thereby by-passing planning law.

·         In the event that the applicant resubmitted a smaller planning application, under permitted development, residents would expect the building line to be taken from the original building line, which corresponded to the existing living room and not the conservatory, which was itself an extension.

The Committee supported the recommendation for refusal for the reasons set out in the report. The officer’s recommendation was therefore moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.