Agenda item

MJC introduced this application for a two-storey rear and single-storey side extension, of overtly contemporary design.  It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Harman and Wilkinson, in view of the the impact it will have on the neighbouring property.  Members saw the site on Planning View.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Ward, neighbour, in objection

Lives with his family at No. 9, which is connected by a shared party wall.  There are two key areas of concern with this proposal:  firstly, the adverse impact on amenity; and secondly, the size of  the proposal.  It is bulky and intrusive; the contemporary design dominates original building. At 3.5m it will be oppressive, uninviting, claustrophobic, decreasing daylight and sunlight to his house. The light test has been done using drawings proven to be inaccurate, not using accurate measurements.  The ground floor windows would fail 45^o test on elevations plan, and the proposal will cause significant overshadowing to rear.  By virtue of its size, the proposal will cause unacceptable harm to his garden.  Material understatement of size of s      The style adopted is not in keeping with the conservation area, which is predominantly 1930s semi-detached houses.   Material zinc.  Other houses in the area have added single-storey rear extensions in similar materials to the original; this is much bigger and clad in zinc, which will be visible from the front.  It should be rejected or moderated to be more in keeping neighbouring properties and conservation area.

Mrs Bish, applicant, in support

This is her family home, which she wants to extend and modernise to create modern flexible living space, to be enjoyed by her children and grandchildren.  In designing the extension, has respected the location in conservation area, keeping key changes at the rear, using the most resilient materials and creating  new spaces which take advantage of the natural benefits of the rear garden.  Listened to planning officers’ opinions and neighbours’ concerns.  Planning officer’s tone of officer report and conclusion – own distinct design merits, not detract from principles in conservation area.  Urge to support plans for updates home for self and family to enjoy.

Councillor Harman

How many members on view?  Three occasions, Mr Ward passion as resilient.  If on view, Mr Ward put to indicate scale and proximity.  Case re overbearing strong – Tryes Road not long, not massive objections.  16 Tryes Road – opposite – 3^rd paragraph – significantly larger than neighbours, out of context.  30 Painswick Road – Chair of SPJARA – closing para – reject or modify – less un-neigbourly.  Members think very carefully.  PB said in previous application – could do better.  This could do better too.  Mr Ward realises neighbour needs to make changes – possibility to look at again.  Not impose on neighbours.  Think very carefully about views being put forward by objectors.

Member debate:

MC:  was on site visit, and Members were told a sample of zinc would be available at the meeting.  This is an interesting proposal – which looks even more different because of the angle of the garden towards the neighbour – overlooking the redundant triangle of land. Is not sure what he feels about it, but can understand why the neighbours have said about it being overbearing.

SW:  sadly was unable to attend planning view, which would have been particularly useful in this case.  Feels it is still useful for him to comment on the size, mass and design of the proposal,  and is reminded the ship containers which were temporarily used to rebuild shops in Christchurch, New Zealand, following the earthquake.  This extension will look like a ship container on the conservatory, and be permanent.  This is a conservation area, and the proposal doesn’t fit in in any way, shape or form with the other buildings.  If more traditional building materials were used, would be hard-pressed to make comments, but with the materials proposed, will find it difficult to support this application.

HM:  one of the most important things in the planning system is for officers and members to be consistent in their decisions – is therefore quite surprised by the officer recommendation to permit.  6.6 Local Plan – states that the extension should not detract from the original building – fails to see how this doesn’t do just that.  This is a conservation area, and we therefore need to be more mindful of the effect the extension will have.  Is reminded of No. 3 Church Street in Charlton Kings, where an application for an extension was refused because it was considered too modern and to detract from the original.  If this proposal is permitted, we are not being consistent.

BF:  zinc has been used in buildings for generations.  It’s true this is a modern design, but it is not unacceptable in 2017. Officers have helped refine the proposal, and is pleased to see a modern statement proposal rather than a bland pastiche. Will support the proposal, but is concerned about the challenge to the light test, however. 

PB:  these applications are always difficult, and clearly upsetting for the people involved.  It is a shame that an amicable solution cannot be reached.  Is reminded of recent applications at Sandy Lane, where the neighbours were eventually able to compromise.    The pictures of this proposal are shocking – how much pre-app discussion with officers would be needed to reach a more acceptable solution?  Accepts the absolute right of the applicant to make her home more usable, but is not sure where to go with this, and wonders if deferral would be the best option

KH:  is thinking much the same as BF on this.  The design of the extension is unashamedly modern and it could be said that it doesn’t fit in the surrounding area, but it is not for the Committee to deny the applicant what they want as long as it is in line with policy – which the officer reports says it is.  Was on Planning View, and can understand why the neighbours find this modern design unpalatable.   It will be viewed by the two immediate neighbours, but from the road, no-one else in particular will see it.  Has great sympathy for the neighbours, agrees it will have a negative impact on their amenity, but not enough to reject the proposal.  It’s regrettable that the applicant wants to remove the old chimney stack which gives a nice historical symmetry to the row of semi-detached houses, but despite this, the application should be approved. 

PT:  cannot vote in support of this application.  The extension to the back and sides is higher than the ridge height – it is an ornicky extension, a carbuncle which doesn’t fit with the house at all.  Isn’t against modern design, but this is too much.

MJC, in response:

-       Regarding the light test, the conventional 45^o test was conducted on the two elements individually, and both complied.   The house next door has a large window opening. The test was re-conducted and officers remain satisfied with the result;

-       Regarding the design, is not surprised to hear Members’ views.  HM is quite right regarding the need to be consistent - this is something that officers take very seriously as a team – but we shouldn’t be completely wedded to traditional architecture.  Historic England’s guidance is that we should consider size, mass, scale and bulk. If these are OK, the  external appearance, the ‘wallpaper’ are less important.  The original proposal was a lot larger than what is being presented today, and has been scaled down to a scheme which officers find acceptable.  It would be easy to turn this into traditional extension– brick render, hipped roof etc - but this is not what we are considering today at committee;

-       As BH and KH have said, this is the 21^st century and we do not need to stick slavishly to traditional designs; this design is unashamedly contemporary, but it is respectful and causes no additional harm, so why should it not be permitted?

-       Regarding the eaves height and breaks in the flat roofs, these tend to be taller and officers are content that the junction will be acceptable;

-       This is an interesting proposal, and we will no doubt be seeing a lot more like it in the future as people think about how best to develop their houses.

PT:   does the guttering continue between the extension and the house?   Cannot see where the guttering goes behind the extension.

MJC, in response:

-       Would expect there to be a leaded junction between the old and new, with water channelled to a new downpipe.

AH:  we need to remember the difference between buildings and homes.  Has a background in historic building surveying, and is particularly aware that homes are living, breathing, evolving entities.  This extension is another phase in this building’s history, and what makes it a home.

PB:  asked officers whether they felt any further discussion would lead to a compromise, or whether they feel the have already gone as far as they can get with this one.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

7 in support (including Chairman’s casting vote)

6 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT