Application no. 20/P3477

Ward: Trinity

Recommendation: GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions

RESOLVED that the application number 20/P3477 be GRANTED planning permission subject to conditions.

Proposal: Replacement of extension with a new single storey rear extension and an additional single storey infill extension to property along with the erection of a rear roof extension.

The Committee noted the report and the plans presented by the Development Control Team Leader (North). The Committee also noted the modification sheet contained in the supplementary agenda. An update on various matters relating to the amendments was also provided to the Committee.

Two residents had registered to speak in objection to the proposed scheme, and at the request of the Chair, had raised a number of points, including:

·         they did not have any objections to the proposal, on condition that, the ground floor extension remained on the same line and footprint as the neighbouring properties;

·         the proposal exceeded the line of the original kitchen and violated onto the north facing glass extension;

·         the proposal illustrated a parapet construction which was not in keeping with the vernacular of the building and style of the neighbouring properties;

·         the proposal would potential restrict natural daylight received in the kitchen to the property of number 10;

·         the proposal exceeded the length of all nearby properties;

·         the elevation and the length of both extensions would have adverse effects on other properties;

·         the scale and height of the extensions were not in keeping to the line of other properties;

·         the over development would block light from neighbouring conservatory.

The applicant had submitted a speech which was read out by Democratic Services Officer. The following points were highlighted:

·         the applicant stated that the ground floor extension did exceed current boundary by 85cm and the height of the ground floor was increased by a small amount. However, the design had been discussed with the architects and it was reassured that the impact on light would be minimal;

·         with regards to privacy, given there were no windows on the side of the 85 cm beyond the current boundary. It was recognised there was a risk of privacy being impacted given number 10’s ground floor extension had windows overlooking to the garden, however, sky lights would be used and not side wall windows;  

·         one of the main objectives in the renovation would be to build with high quality materials to protect against any damp issues;

·         there was a parapet proposed for the ground floor which exceeded boundary by 85 cm. Other properties of exact design already had top floor bedroom built;

·         Furthermore, that applicant had proposed not to do the first floor extension and only do the ground floor extension.

Councillor Nigel Benbow (Ward Member for Abbey) had submitted a speech which was read out by Democratic Services Officer.  The Committee had noted that Councillor Benbow stated that the proposed scheme exceeded the boundary line, compared to other extensions at 16, 18 and 20 Cecil Road. The proposed development would potential cause loss of sunlight to the neighbouring properties gardens and conservatory. There was a very high wall behind the properties, however, this was not clear on the plans, and therefore, the sense of enclosure was not understood.  Both neighbours at properties 10 and 14 felt betrayed by the proposed overdevelopment extension at property 12. It would considerably impact their lives as they spend a lot of time in their gardens and conservatory. Furthermore, it was sated that the residents were not opposing to the extension, providedit was in line with the other neighbouring properties.

In the ensuing debate, Members’ raised a number of points and in response to Members’ questions and comments the Development Control Team Leader (North) stated the following points:

·         The 85cm building line was within the boundary of the development’s garden;

·         The large boundary wall to the back of the property would remain;

·         The proposed development was not considered to be visually harmful or to neighbouring immunity.

The Chair moved to the vote on the officer’s recommendation and it was

RESOLVED that the application number 20/P3477 be GRANTED planning permission subject to conditions.