Agenda item

Erection of a two-storey side/rear extension and a single storey rear extension. Roof light located on rear roof slope with the demolition of outbuildings.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Erection of a two-storey side/rear extension and a single storey rear extension. Roof light located on rear roof slope with the demolition of outbuildings.

Officers introduced the application noting that the site plan / ground floor plan included in the agenda pack was a previous version which had referenced the wrong house number for an outbuilding – an updated plan had been included in the officer’s presentation; this had had no impact on the officer’s recommendation. The proposal was for a large extension and was recommended for approval. A previous application for planning permission to build a 3-bedroom detached house at the site had been refused in May 2022.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Key points highlighted included:

·         Plans for a 3-bed house at the site had previously been rejected;

·         Concerns were raised regarding potential use as an HMO given that the development would incorporate 5 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms;

·         A large extension at the other end of the terrace group (no.15) had been built 39 years ago hence should not be considered relevant to this application. Moreover, the extension at no.15 had been intended for family use and had only one bathroom and one toilet;

·         Residents were concerned the extension could be converted into a 7-bedroom HMO at a future stage;

·         Parking stress would be exacerbated if the planned development were to go ahead;

·         House numbers 10 and 12 shared a water supply. Water pressure was already at the legal limit hence the impact of the development was a matter of concern; 

·         The view from residents’ gardens would be compromised if the application were agreed;

·         The new property would look like a ‘bolt on’ and would not be in keeping with the current building line.

A written statement on behalf of the applicant was read out to the Committee. Members heard that the planning application had been made in good faith to increase the size of a family home. The existing house was situated on a large plot of land providing a substantial total of 366 square metres of garden and parking amenities. The development would only utilise a small part of this otherwise unused space (50 square metres). The extension had been carefully planned in line with planning policy and was respectful of the neighbour’s amenities. The works would bring the house in line with current building regulations and make it more sustainable.

Ward Councillor Roy Chamdal addressed the Committee in objection to the application. He noted that the application conflicted with current policy as it exceeded half the size of the original property. Councillor Chamdal felt it was not a good development and was not required. He commented that the reference to a previous application on the site was not relevant to this case. Moreover, planning permission for the large extension at the other end of the terrace had been granted many years previously and did not make the current application acceptable. 

Members expressed concern that the proposal did not align with current policy and requested further clarification regarding the size of the development and the potential for HMO use. It was confirmed that the proposed width was 4.3m – to comply with policy this would need to be reduced by 1.3m. With regard to the potential use as an HMO, the Committee was advised that the area was subject to an Article 4 restriction hence planning permission would be required for any change of use. At this stage it was important that Members focussed only on the application before them.

Members were informed that the existence of a large extension at the other end of the terrace was a material consideration, which would also carry considerable weight if a decision were to be appealed. An inspector would be required to consider whether the addition of something symmetrical would be harmful. It was noted that officers had proposed a number of conditions to protect the amenity of neighbours; if the matter were to go to appeal, it was possible that the inspector would not allow these.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that the previous application at the site had proposed a materially different scheme for a new house, which had been refused. Parking provision was now considered acceptable because this scheme was for an extension, not a new dwelling. Concerns regarding water pressure could not be taken into account as this was not a material planning consideration.

A site visit was proposed and unanimously agreed. It was confirmed that, following the visit, the application would come back to the Borough Planning Committee for further consideration. Should petitioners wish to speak again, a new petition would be required.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred pending a site visit.