Agenda item

Front porch infill, first floor side extension and alterations to existing side elevation.

Recommendation: Approval

Front porch infill, first floor side extension and alterations to existing side elevation.

18957/APP/2010/266

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• The proposal will result in the alteration of a unique and uniform design of the whole street of houses which are protected by covenant and have won architectural wards when built.
• It is misleading to suggest that the property is a two-bedroom house rather than a five bedroom house.
• Planning conditions differ considerably if a design has 4 bedrooms or more bedrooms.
• There is a lack of amenity space to go with the enlarged building. The property only has a small courtyard of 67 metres squared which does not comply with the amenity space guidance.
• Adding a further 2 bedrooms will create a 7 bedroom house.
• Concerns about the possible uses of the building.
• Car parking is already a problem and the proposal will not improve this.
• The proposal will change the structure of the building and street scene which may effect property values.
• Planning proposals for 1 Pike’s End have already been dismissed and therefore the roof line has been considered before.

Points raised by a representative of the Eastcote Village Area Conservation Panel:

• Maintaining the existing roof line is key to preserving the character and appearance of the area.
• The scale and form of the proposal does not harmonise with the area.
• The proposal will not enhance the area.
• The size of the garden will be too small for the development. The proposal is meant to be a family home and there is nowhere close by for children to play.
• The extra extension will remove the bathroom window.
• The rear bedroom windows are very small and will there be sufficient natural light to this room?

Points raised by the applicant:

• The application is within the regulations. This is not the original design and advice and guidance has been sought from the Planning Department.
• There are a series of errors in the report. There still is a small window to the bathroom.
• The garden is small but there is lawn to the sides of the property and the applicant has discussed this with their neighbours.
• The applicant was unaware of any parking problems.
• The applicant does provide domiciliary care but no care is conducted at the property.
• The applicant is the only household in the immediate area with children and there is a park less than 100 metres away from the property.
• The proposal is not radical or underhand in any way.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting in support of the petitioners objecting and raised the following points:

• The proposal is within a conservation area and (if approved) the design is not uniform and will not harmonise with the area.
• The proposal stipulates the materials used will match existing properties. It will be very difficult to source and match materials exactly and this will have a detrimental impact on the street scene.
• The loss of light to 4 Pikes End is marginal but is material to the home affected.

Members asked officers to clarify the number of bedrooms. In response, officers suggested that the number could be anywhere between 2 and 5 and that homes with 4 bedrooms or more require 100metres squared of amenity space. Officers confirmed that the proposal did not impact on amity space.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote approval was agreed by 4 votes in favour with 2 votes against.

Resolved –

That the application be Approved.