Agenda item

            That the appeal be opposed due to the detrimental impact on the neighbouring property and the development being out of character with the local area. 

            The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 23 July 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

                        The Development Manager detailed the background to the report and explained that the applicant had submitted an appeal against non determination of the application.  Because of this, the application was not for determination by the Committee at this meeting, but that a steer from the Committee was being sought on how to progress the appeal.  He explained that the proposed extension to the bungalow was to be built in an ‘L’ shape with the extension being three metres on the left hand side and 12 metres on the right hand side and was very close to the side extension of the adjacent property.  A previous application had been withdrawn in January 2012 and this resubmission took the extension away from the boundary even though there was no requirement to do this in planning terms, pointing out that the extension on the adjoining property came up to the boundary.  The main issue for consideration was the scale of the development which amounted to an overall percentage increase of 78%.  The Council’s Local Planning Guidance Note – House Extensions and Alterations made reference to a general guidance figure of 50% for new extensions, however other factors needed to be considered and it was felt that the scale of the proposed development was acceptable in these circumstances.           

                        Councillor M.J. Peers referred to the reason the application had been deferred at the previous meeting as it was reported that this had been for a site visit.  He highlighted page 3 of the minutes for that meeting which had been approved earlier as the reason he had proposed deferment at the meeting was due to information being received at the late observations stage which was relative to the application which the local Member had not had the opportunity to consider.  The Development Manager said that a site visit had also been requested. 

                        Mrs. Edwards spoke against the application and indicated that the extension was 105% of the original floor space, with the guidance being 50%.  The physical gap between this and the adjoining property would reduce.  There was no means of escape from the rear of the extension and the extension would result in the loss of a large part of the garden.  Mrs. Edwards felt that a design could be submitted which would comply with policy and urged the Committee to refuse the application. 

                        The Chairman used his discretion to allow one of the local Members, Councillor D. Hutchinson to speak on the application.  Councillor Hutchinson supported refusal of the application due to the extension being overbearing and not in keeping with the streetscene.  The extension was more than twice the size of the original dwelling and did not comply with policy.  He said that present guidance meant that extensions could be more than 50% in certain circumstances in the open countryside but this was an urban setting and therefore did not comply with policy.  He said that small extensions had been permitted on other properties in the area but that the proposal in this application was unacceptable.  Councillor Hutchinson said that the minimum guideline distance for space around dwellings in planning guidance was two metres but the amount proposed in this application was 0.5 metres.    

            Councillor Peers proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that it was not for the Committee to approve or refuse the application as an appeal had been submitted but that the stance by the Council at appeal needed to be considered.  Councillor Peers proposed that the Committee oppose the appeal.  The proposal was to demolish the garage and previous extension and build the extension detailed in the application but as identified earlier, this would result in an increase of the original floorspace of 105%.  He said that the extension at 17 Hawarden Drive was not comparable to this application. 

            Councillor H.G. Roberts said that in his opinion there was no reason to refuse the application.  Councillor R.C. Bithell concurred with the comments and said that the adjoining property had an extension as was proposed in the application.  He said that the gap of 400mm between the two properties was small but not a reason to refuse the application. 

            In summing up, Councillor Peers reiterated his comments that the extension on 17 Hawarden Drive could not be compared to this proposal.  The proposed extension was a large and overpowering extension with the size being that of adding another bungalow onto the original dwelling.  He said that it was out of character with the area, was detrimental to other properties and the design was not sympathetic to policy. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to oppose the appeal was CARRIED.

            RESOLVED:

            That the appeal be opposed due to the detrimental impact on the neighbouring property and the development being out of character with the local area.