Agenda item

BH introduced the application as above, at Planning Committee at the request of the Parish Council, in support of the objection from No. 234 Hatherley Road.  The officer recommendation is to grant planning permission.

Public Speaking:

Mr Ashwood, neighbour, in objection

Has submitted a letter of objection to the Council, as has the owner of the Post Office at 238 Hatherley Road – yet the council is still prepared to right roughshod over adjacent neighbours’ views and recommend that this application be permitted.  There have been three extensions to this property, plus the erection of a conservatory, 3m in depth; the proposal is to replace this with a single-storey extension of 5.75m, tying in with the existing garage and office.  Together with the existing extensions, this will make the total depth of extension approximately 8.6m, part of which will be two-storey.  The original footprint of the house, with a separate wooden garage, was 53.3sq metres; with these extensions, the area will be approximately 150sq metres, 2.81 times larger than the original.  This is gross overdevelopment of the site in close proximity to adjoining properties.  From the bedroom window, will look out on approximately 74sq metres of flat roof, with two Velux windows likening it to a commercial unit.  Despite the proposal for a solid 8.6m wall, 2.8m in height, the council says this will not be overbearing on his property - boundary fences are normally up to 2m in height.  None of the surrounding rear gardens haver such a vast and aesthetically unpleasing structure.  Is concerned that a further application could be made to extend the two-storey extension; a line must be drawn at some point as to how many extensions can be added to a property of this size.   Taking into consideration both neighbours’ objections, would urge the committee to refuse, on their objections and also on overdevelopment grounds.

Mr Shine, applicant, in support  

Would like to briefly outline the reasons for this extension and address the objections raised.  A key factor is for maintenance – the existing flat roof extension is badly built, the timber roof is rotten and leaking, causing damp and mould; the conservatory footings have failed, the conservatory has dropped by an inch, with multiple leaks and draughts coming into the house;  both extensions are poorly designed and built, with a valley gutter which cannot be accessed for maintenance and is compounding the water ingress.   A second and main reason for the proposal is the need for space, having just had a third child;  want to create an open plan environment with an improved line of visibility, allowing the children to play safely and independently. Large bi-fold doors to the rear will help create the functional and practical space the family is looking for.  Considered the potential impact on No. 234 – it will be minimal, with the additional 2.5m screened by trees and fence panels.  It does not fail the light test – there will be no unacceptable loss of light.  Regarding visual impact, the consistent height and material finish will improve the appearance of the building, and the  additional depth will not be overbearing.  The extension will sit comfortably in the plot, and appear appropriately subservient to the existing building.  Have considered moving house but this is not a viable option – for the same amount of space, would need to move away from area, and they like living in the Hatherley community.  Used the pre-app service to take on board planning officers’ comments, and have revised plans accordingly.  Has no comment regarding the objection from No. 238; the officer report states there will be no loss of privacy to any of the neighbouring land users, and is compliant with policy CP4.

Member debate:

SW:  has been thinking about how much of this extension could have been built under permitted development – but assumes it could not have been, as the application is at Committee.  The original plan was felt to be over development, and the neighbour clearly feels it still is.  Is torn by this - can see why the applicant wants to do it, if the current extension and conservatory are falling apart and need replacing – extending at the same time for a little more cost seems a sensible option.

BH, in response:

-       Paragraph 6.12 of the report deals with this briefly:  under permitted development, a single storey extension up to 6m from the original rear wall of the property could be built.  The current extensions use up most of that, with this proposal adding a further 2.5m – which is why the planning application is required. An extension of 6m could be built under permitted development but this would not be enough to achieve what the applicants require. Members need to consider the impact of the additional 2.5m. 

Vote on office recommendation to permit

13 in support

PERMIT