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.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

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 and made a recommendation for approval. It was noted that this application had been deferred from the Committee meeting on 1 November 2022 to allow a Member site visit to take place.

A petitioner in objection of the proposed development addressed the Committee and thanked Members and officers for attending the site visit. It was highlighted that the proposal was not policy compliant and any additional builds would lead to overcrowding. It was submitted that the proposal differed from the side extension at number 15 as a two-storey rear extension was also being proposed in this application and number 15 did not have this. This would be the first rear extension to be cited at the floor level and would spoil the straight terrace line. There was therefore no relevance in citing number 15 in the proposal. Concerns were raised regarding parking pressures and the potential for this development to be used as a home of multiple occupancy (HMO) in the future. Since the site visit, the Committee was informed that the second petition produced 27 signatures and there was strong objection from residents. The Committee was asked to refuse the application.

By way of written submission, the applicant for the application addressed the Committee. It was submitted 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 366m² of garden and parking amenities. The applicant intended to build on 50m² of this outside space, a small part which is otherwise unused. The extension had been designed very carefully, mindful of the relevant planning policies and the neighbour’s amenities. The proposal was supported by planning officers and provided an opportunity to renovate the existing house, bringing it up to date with current building regulations, and making it more sustainable.

Councillor Roy Chamdal , Ward Councillor for Colham and Cowley addressed the Committee and supported the residents’ two petitions which totalled 82 signatures. It was highlighted that the development was not policy compliant and therefore caused harm. The application was inconsiderate of neighbours, and it was noted that planning law had changed considerably in the last 35 years.

The Chairman reminded Members that the any reference to HMOs with Article 4 in the area was irrelevant and asked Members to consider the application before the Committee. 

The Committee thanked officers for arranging the Member site visit and considered it to be worthwhile. It was noted that the application deviated from planning policy however there were material planning considerations that had been taken into account and this had created an on-balance decision.

The Committee took the view that the development was overly wide, not subordinate to number 10 and contrary to policy. The impact on the street scene was also considered and the 1.3m difference was too far out. Parking issues were also a concern.

The Planning Services Manager advised the Committee that a planning judgement needed to be made after considering all of the factors. The proportions of the extension were noted however this needed to be balanced against the character and appearance of the area. There was no harm from the proposed extension and the Committee was informed that this could not be defended at appeal.

The Head of Legal Services (Acting) advised Members that if the Committee was minded to refuse the application then clear reasons needed to be given on what constituted the planning harm.

The Committee was mindful of the relationship between the dwelling and proposed extension, the fact that it was overly wide, contrary to policy and the direct impact on the neighbouring property. Based on the bulk, width, scale and failure to be subordinate which caused harm to the host dwelling,  the Committee decided to refuse the application. Members were also mindful of setting any precedent in the area.

A motion to overturn the officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded and when put to a vote, there were three votes in favour and four abstentions.

RESOVLED: That the application be refused.