Agenda item

MP introduced the application to extend this modern detached bungalow with an asymmetric roof.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Bickerton.  Officers considered the revised scheme to be at odds with the locality and incongruous in the street scene, and the recommendation is therefore to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Mr Brown, agent, in support

The applicant seeks to develop the property at his own cost with a full planning application, rather than the tile-hung full-length dormer design that would allow similar expansion under PD rights.   The vast majority of neighbours want to see this scheme implemented rather than that permitted under PD rights, and their feelings carry great weight in this proposal.  Design is always subjective, and the built form respects the character of the estate, the materials emulate those prevalent at the time of construction, and also represent a contemporary form will benefit from a first-floor addition - the simplest and most long-standing form of design.  The surrounding estate features another dwelling with an asymmetric roof, so the proposal would not be at odds with the immediate locality. Officers consider a first floor addition may be acceptable in some form. The proposal complements and respects the neighbourhood character; to say the proposal is at odds with the existing character of the building is a moot point as this could be altered under PD rights; but most importantly is carries support of the majority of neighbours, and therefore accords with the requirements of Local Plan Policy CP7.

Member debate:

CN:  as councillor for Leckhampton, knows the area well.  On first sight of the drawings, was in two minds about it; officers did not support it for design reasons – the height issue more than anything else – so wonders why the applicant has refused any further changes as proposed by officers.  Thinks the design is not too bad, and looks better than the dormer-type design that could be done under permitted development.  The first proposal was widely supported, this is mostly supported, and also has the backing of Councillor Bickerton. 

PJ:  actually quite likes the design.  Is there any other reason to go against the officer recommendation?

PT:  cannot support this application.  On Planning View, saw the site and felt that this proposal would destroy the whole look of the area.  Only by seeing it is it possible to understand.  The owner should not be allowed to mess around with the existing building to this extent.  In addition, mature trees would be lost to accommodate these plans, and that would be a great loss to the area.

SW:  is glad that officers are recommending refusal.  Doesn’t like the existing building -  a bungalow with bits built on the side, and now proposing further building on top.  It will look even more of a mess, and can’t support it.  It would have been better to leave this dwelling as a bungalow.

PB:  cannot see any reference to the trees in the report.

BF:  supports the officer recommendation and the refusal reasons suggested.

AL:  the speaker said an extra floor could be added to the building under permitted development if the windows were different.  Is that correct?

MP, in response:

-       to CN, the suggestions made to the applicant to improve the revised scheme are set out in the officer reported – reduced footprint, two-storey eaves – but were not forthcoming;

-       to PB, the trees were noted on site visit.  It appeared that one would need to be removed, but it is not considered particularly significant;

-       to AL, this scheme needs planning permission.  Under permitted development, the applicant could maintain the existing eaves and ridge line but introduce dormer windows to get additional accommodation.

CJC, in response:

-       there are two trees on the site: a cypress and a gleditsia.The gleditsia on the left has been reduced heavily in the past but grows back easily. The cypress would have to go, but this is not a show-stopper and could be replaced.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

12 in support

2 in objection

REFUSE