Agenda item

MJC introduced this application for a two-storey rear extension, following a previously approved scheme for an extension half the width of the property.  This application seeks a full-width extension, at two storeys.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman, and Members visited the site on Planning View.  The recommendation is to refuse, in view of the harm to the building. 

Public Speaking:

Mrs Baglow, applicant, in support

Thanked Members for the opportunity to speak in support of her planning application.  Needed to extend her house to accommodate her family, with a third bedroom and upstairs bathroom.  The previous scheme was approved, but realised that better use of the space could be made, with a full-width extension.  Followed advice of the planning officer and subservience guidelines – the revised scheme is 17.5% smaller than the previous one, and must therefore be considered subservient.  Considers the proposal to comply with CP7 with regard to high standard of design, materials and architectural integrity, and windows in keeping.  This proposal reduces the impact on the neighbouring property – there will be no over-looking.  Has been in touch with a party wall surveyor.  Understands that the house is in a conservation area, but the extension is at the back of the property.  The proposal also follows green principles.  This alternative lay-out is more characterful, and both Nos. 11 and 19 Dagmar Road have full-width extensions.  Considers that all concerns have been addressed.  The revised scheme is a smaller, more efficient, optimised design, with less impact on the site than the approved scheme.

Member debate:

SW:  understands where the officer comments are coming from, but noted on Planning View the neighbouring property with a two-storey half-width extension.  Felt that this longer, narrower extension was much higher and more imposing – as the applicant has said, the full-width extension won’t extend as far.  It will be a much more useful space.  On balance, as this is at the back of the building not the front, will be in favour and vote to permit.

MC:  has looked at the drawings, and considers the proposed lay-out of the full-width extension better than the longer, narrower rear extension.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

2 in support

7 in objection

2 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

MJC, in response:

-       Had not expected Members to vote in this way.  Has heard SW’s comments, but would just reiterate some of the important points made in the report;

-       Consistency is very important here.  The local authority has an SPD on residential extensions, setting out various principles, in particular that of subservience.  An extension should take a supporting role, and this is officers’ principle concern here – the full-width extension masks the back of the building;

-       It is important to remember this is a conservation area.  Historically, buildings of this nature extended with a wing.  They are artisan houses.  This is why the previous scheme was permitted;

-       It is important to reiterate that the SPD must be applied consistently.

CH:  Although Members are asked not to repeat themselves, in view of MJC’s surprise at the vote, would just say that he was in agreement with SW’s arguments.  Members are told they must consider each application on its own merits.  In this case, considers the impact of the full-width extension on the neighbour’s house to be less.  This is why he voted against the officer recommendation. 

Vote on SW’s move to permit

7 in support

2 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT

PB:  suggests that the SPD on residential extensions could be reviewed as part of the local plan process.

MJC, in response:

-       Yes.  Officers are keen to re-write it.