Agenda item

Part two storey, part single storey rear/side extension and single storey detached garage to side/rear involving demolition of existing detached garage to side.

Recommendation: Approval

Part  two  storey,  part  single  storey  rear/side  extension  and  single  storey detached  garage  to  side/rear  involving  demolition  of  existing  detached garage to side.

The  application  property  was  a  distinctive,  two  storey,  detached  dwelling  situated  on  the western side of Catlins Lane. The  property  dates  from  1904,  was  locally  listed  and  within  the  Eastcote  Village Conservation Area.

To  the  rear,  the  two  storey  elements  of  the  building  were  broadly  "L"  shaped with  a  two storey element extending out to the rear at the northern end of the building, adjacent to an existing  garage  and  outbuildings  that  were  set  behind  the  rear  elevation.  A  large  single storey  (original)  conservatory  structure  occupied  the  area  to  the  south  of  this  return, extending to the same depth.

The building was located opposite St Catherine's Farm which is a Grade II Listed Building. The  streetscene  was  verdant  and  semi-rural  in  nature.  It was primarily  residential with  large two storey individually designed houses, generally set in large plots, with the buildings set well back from the road.

The application was  for  the erection of a  two storey side extension  to  the southern side of the building, a rear extension and a replacement garage. The plans had been amended from that originally submitted, principally resulting in changes to the proposed siting of the garage, alterations to the extent of the patio/terrace area at the rear and alterations to the proposed landscaping at the front of the property.

The  two  storey  side extension would be 3.425m wide and  set back  from  the main  front elevation of the house by 1m. It would extend beyond the rear elevation of the two storey element  to  which  it  was  attached  by  4.8m.  This  would  be  1.2m  beyond  the  existing conservatory, and broadly in line with the rear elevation of Westcott that lies to the south. A 1m gap would be retained to the boundary with Westcott. No windows were proposed in the flank elevation and external materials would be to match the existing house.

To the rear of the house a two storey extension was proposed at its northern side, closest to the garage.  This  element would  be  3.5m  in  depth, with  the width  reflecting  that  of  the gable above. The extension would continue the existing roof form, extending out further from the house than that existing. The extension would be finished in a smooth render, as would the whole of the house. There would be no windows in the northern flank wall.

The gap created by the two storey extensions either side at the rear would be infilled with a  single  storey  rear  extension,  extending  to  the  same  depth  as  the  southern most  two storey extension adjacent to Westcott.

The existing garage would be removed and replaced with a larger garage that would be 6m deep and 3.7m wide. It would feature a hipped roof with front and rear gables, with a ridge height of 3.3m.  Land  levels  drop  to  the  rear  of  the  garage  and  within  the  rear garden.

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

• Mrs Leach addressed the Committee on behalf of the petition submitted to the Council.
• She was not objecting to the whole development but six points on the application that was submitted.
• The proposed side extension would give the appearance of a terrace as it would close the gap between the houses.
• The application was out of keep with the houses in the area and the Conservation Area.
• The 2-storey extension proposed did not comply with Council legislation.
• The proposed extension was too wide and with within the 1 metre minimum requirement as was suggested in the officer report.
• The proposal to trees would impact by loss of light and have an impact on drainage. This issue needed to be looked at with a condition on the application.
• The application would be over dominant and result in a loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.
• The patio would be raised and result in overlooking, which was against policy.
• That should any work be carried out there should be a condition imposed to protect the front garden, front wall and front path.
• Aesthetically there was an architectural imbalance in the proposed application.
• The residents association had echoed the views of the residents and those 118 that signed the petition.
• The petitioner asked the Committee to refuse the application that was submitted.

The agent spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

• Mrs Parmjit Lalli spoke on behalf of the application.
• She stated that it was important to the owners that any extension was in-keep with the character of Oakwood.
• The applicant was keen to work with the Conservation officer who had advised significant changes to the application and her client had accepted these. Changes had been made which included a reduction of a bedroom.
• The client was surprised that a petition had been submitted in objection to the application. The agent stated that the majority of those that signed the petition lived outside the local area.
• That none of the neighbours had raised objections directly to them.
• Neighbouring properties had extensions.
• The 1metre was within planning guidelines.
• The proposal would enhance the conversion area.
• The applicants had brought the property and wished to keep it to look the way it did and to update the property.
• The agent asked the Committee to support the application and grant planning permission.

Members asked officers for clarification on the patio height and boundary distance. Officers confirmed that the proposed patio would include an increase of about a foot. Officers confirmed that there would be a 1 metre gap between properties on the assumption the boundary line was as per the report and plans. If that was not the boundary line then it would be less than 1 metre and therefore non-compliant. Members wished for officers to clarify this distance.

Members felt the dominance of a 2-storey side extension was a key issue and proposed a site visit. Members were concerned that there maybe a terracing effect.

The recommendation for deferral was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be deferred for a site visit.