Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, with a recommendation to permit.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Baker, in view of the concerns raised by neighbours.

Public Speaking:

Mr Malcolm Sheppard, neighbour, in objection

Thanked Members for visiting the site on Tuesday, explaining that the neighbours have no objection in principle to house extensions but are concerned at how this application accords with the integrity of the neighbourhood.  The planning officer states that it is ‘sustainable development’.  Neighbours would say that Hartley Close, built in the early ‘70s, is a fine example of ‘sustainable development’ and a ‘sustainable environment’ too.  Over the years, several properties have had additions, some substantial, but maintaining the original open qualities of the Close.  However, the prominent position of No. 8, the design and scale of the remodelling, will profoundly disrupt the character of the street scene, and be particularly overbearing on No. 10 next door.  The doubling of the western flank, north to south, with a new gable extending to the original house ridge, makes the wing the dominant component of the dwelling, rather than a subordinate addition, in breach of CP7.  That policy also requires windows to match the original in form and colour, which is plainly not the case here, on the street side elevations.  Amenity and environment will also be compromised, as set out in CP1.  There has been a limited retreat from the ambitions of the initial application and shifts in lay-out to the side, which have aggravated rather than complemented the relationship of the proposal with its surroundings.  Outlook is still significantly affected, and the design could become a catalyst for harmful future development.  Hartley Close residents consider themselves fortunate to live in a spacious, open environment, and wonder if it need this type of contemporary ‘fix’.  Urges the committee to withhold approval until the proposal marries more sympathetically to the scene.

Member debate:

PB:  congratulates officers on what they have achieved so far with this scheme – this original proposal was horrendous, and the current proposal is far more acceptable.  However, it is still out of keeping with the character of Hartley Close in scale, mass and design, in contravention of CP1.  Unlike the previous application considered tonight, where there was no opposition from neighbours, here there is.  Hartley Close is a special road, which has been carefully looked after and maintained over the years.  If not refused, would ask that the decision be deferred, to look at further reduction of the mass of the extension.  Is not comfortable with the proposal as it stands; it has come a long way but could still be better.

BF:  the speaker’s comments highlighted a constant theme of tonight’s applications – how properties fit in the street scene, and how needs and requirements change and evolve over 20, 30, 50 years.  Most 50-year-old properties have evolved to some extent.  The bungalow proposed in Bouncers Lane will help with the housing need, but the properties in Hartley Close and Sandy Lane are getting bigger, because of people’s needs and ambitions for their properties are changing, which will inevitably alter the balance of the area.  This proposal just about fits in, so cannot vote against it, but is also bearing in that mind what is permitted here and elsewhere will make the area look different.  Likes the brickwork in the proposal, and on balance, will vote with the officer recommendation.

MJC, in response:

-       Regarding PB’s comments on refusal on CP1 or deferral, as PB said, a lot of work has already been done from the start of this application process, and doesn’t think any more progress can be made.  All the stops have been pulled out to get to this position, and Members should determine the application on what is before them tonight. 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

3 in objection

PERMIT