Agenda item

Single storey rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

Single storey rear extension.

The application site was located on the south eastern side of Wentworth Drive, a residential area of bungalows and houses. The site, No.  39, was a semi-detached bungalow that was attached to No.37 to the east and a detached bungalow, No. 41, was situated to the west.

These bungalows were on slightly raised ground. Nos. 37 and 39 were built as a pair with rear outshoots creating a short 'L' shape, each projecting 1.75m from No. 39 and 0.68m from No.37. Both properties had also extended their properties to fill in the 'L' shape and extended further outwards. The  remainder  of  properties  on  this  side  of  the  road  were  two storey  houses,  downhill  as  the  road  slopes  away  to  the  north,  north  east.  All three bungalows had single storey rear additions of which only limited glimpses were obtained from the front.  Limited  rear  views  were  gained  from  a  gated  private  access  road  serving garages to the rear of this side of Wentworth Drive.

The proposal was to erect a flat-roofed single storey extension to the rear. The extension would be stepped so that its smaller projection abuts the adjoining bungalow. The  extension  would  span  the  entire  width  of  the  property,  meeting  the  edges  of  the existing extensions and projecting out into the garden to a depth of 3.0m before stepping in by 3.21m on the boundary of No. 37 and projecting out again to a further 1.11m for a final width of 4.79m  towards  the boundary  to No. 41. The stepping permits a 45 degree angle of sight from the middle of the patio doors to No. 37. The proposed extension would project out a distance of 2.178m from the back wall of the extension to No. 37.

The new extension would replace an earlier extension and add to the floor area, making a total depth from the original bungalow of 6.4m where abutting the side of No. 37 and 7.1m on the side of No. 41. Both the existing and proposed side extensions would project approximately 0.7m above the existing fences. The proposed extension, at its longest, meets the rear building line of the extension to No.41.

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 petitioners:

• Neighbours had discussed the loss of light that would result if the development was granted planning permission.
• The application was for an extension on an existing extension. This would bring the long extension in line with it’s neighbour at no.41 and would impact grossly on no.37.
• The 45 degree line of angel that was taken for the line of sight was taken from an incorrect position and did not show the extent of impact the development would have.
• That a planning officer had verbally agreed that the line of sight had been taken in the wrong place and the petitioner was surprised that this point had been washed over in the report.
• A considerable amount of sunlight would be lost to the neighbour’s kitchen.
• The lead petitioner had helpful and constructive discussions with the applicant said that they may make another application for this site.

The agent was not present to comment on the application.

Members commented that the agent had not withdrawn the application so the Committee had a decision to make. If granted, this application would be valid for 3 years.

Members asked officers to clarify the 45 degree line of sight and discussed the number of windows. Members discussed overshadowing and accepted that there was an overshadowing issue, and loss of light for the neighbour at no.37.

Members also discussed the issues around extending on an existing extension and whether it was a case of an excessive extension. It was commented that adjoining properties had similar size extensions.

Members felt it would be appropriate to overturn the officer recommendation on the basis of overshadowing, size and bulk of the extension. That it was contrary to policies B20 and B15.

The recommendation for overturning the officer recommendation and refusing the application was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

Recommendation overturned and application REFUSED on the grounds of size, scale and bulk out of character with the existing property and the impact on adjoining occupiers in terms of loss of light and overshadowing. Exact wording to be agreed with the Chairman and Labour lead.