Agenda item

Erection of a single storey rear extension, amendments to side extension roof, extension to existing loft conversion including extension of roof to the rear and formation of crown roof, enlargement of rear dormer window, and installation of 2no. side facing roof lights, and addition of render and insulation to external walls. 

Recommendation: Approval. 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation.

Erection of a single storey rear extension, amendments to side extension roof, extension to existing loft conversion including extension of roof to the rear and formation of crown roof, enlargement of rear dormer window, and installation of 2no. side facing roof lights, and addition of render and insulation to external walls.

Officers introduced the application which was recommended for approval.

A petition in objection to the application had been received and the lead petitioner was in attendance to address the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The officer had misunderstood the main reason for the petition, which related to the construction on the boundary wall.
• The petition included 25 signatures.
• The petition aimed to address the construction on the boundary wall, not a massive two or three-storey planning request.
• The area of special local character (ASLC) leaflet stated that any redevelopment or two-storey side extension should be at least one metre from the side boundary.
• The distance between the boundary wall and the neighbouring property was 900 millimetres at its widest point.
• The space became narrower further down due to a chimney.
• The owners of the property intended to use the structure for a piano tuition room for commercial purposes.
• The nearby window was his daughter’s bedroom  / study room.
• The speaker expressed concerns about noise from the piano tuition room affecting their work.
• The existing side extension was a temporary lean-to structure with a perspex plastic roof.
• The structure was initially a post and plastic roof at ground level, later infilled with single skin brickwork.
• The plans were incorrect, showing a nine-inch solid wall instead of a 4 1/2 inch garden wall.
• The speaker did not oppose the rest of the development, as it did not include a three-storey or six-bedroom house.
• It was noted that there were two side roof velux windows.

The applicant / agent was not in attendance.

Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting addressed the Committee Members in support of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

• Councillor Sweeting noted a non-pecuniary interest in the agenda item and spoke against the planning application.
• No.10 Frays Avenue was unlike most properties in the area of special local character.
• The proposed 4-bedroom property would have been squeezed into a small plot and negatively affected the neighbouring property at number 81.
• The shared boundary required a party wall agreement, and the front dormer and crown roof were the basis of the objection from the Council's conservation officer.
• The proposal did not meet the requirement of being at least one metre from the side boundary to retain the spacious setting.
• The extension was to be built on the site of the old lean-to, which was allowed due to the 10-year rule.
• The proposed front builder extension and crown roofs were not common features on the estate and were contrary to policy.
• The report mentioned properties numbers 14 and 3 Frays Avenue, which had shared boundaries, but their boundary walls were garage walls, not walls to habitable spaces.
• Allowing the habitable room on the boundary would set an unfortunate precedent not in keeping with the area's requirements for spacious settings.
• Paragraph 7.13 mentioned that a slight increase in the site size would not harm the neighbour's amenities, but resolving the party wall issue might require the roof to be heightened.
• The site was small and cramped, and only with unusual features could a 4-bedroom house be built.
• The property was listed as a six-person HMO and had previously generated considerable issues of concern.
• The Garden City was a unique area, and the Committee was asked to refuse the application as it negatively affected the immediate neighbour and did not protect the area's integrity.

Officers addressed Members to clarify some of the issues raised by petitioners and the Ward Councillors.

With regard to the 10-year rule, it was noted that the report referred to the structure being in place for 10 years, but the lawful basis for the extension was actually four years. Officers mentioned that the general feature of crown roofs was not uncommon in the area. The extension to the rear was a modest 0.3-metre extension and did not need to be set in from the boundary. It was noted that the policy requiring buildings to be set off the boundary was to protect against the terracing effect, which was more relevant to two-storey dwellings. Officers acknowledged the petitioner's concern about noise from the potential use of the structure for piano lessons but noted that the new structure needed to conform to building regulation standards, which would improve insulation. The existing structure was built up to the boundary, and the extension to the rear was very modest. Officers recommended approval of the proposed small-scale development.

Members enquired whether the proposed conditions could be strengthened to protect the lead petitioner from noise emanating from the music room. In response, officers observed that the plans did not mention a music room specifically. Should the room be used for a larger scale commercial operation, this would be a matter for planning enforcement.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was noted that 6-person HMOs did not require planning permission. The property had previously been used as an HMO but the current applicant could not be held accountable for previous use. Officers observed that the 1-metre rule existed primarily to prevent a terracing effect; at single storey level it was felt that the gap would still be visible.

In response to Members’ requests for clarification, the Legal Advisor noted that party walls were a property matter and did not fall within the remit of planning legislation.

No further concerns were raised by the Committee. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with six votes in favour and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation.