Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman, in view of the number of objections from neighbours.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Goodlock, neighbour, in objection

Is representing residents at Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 Bournside Road, all of whom have objected to this application.  Their issues may seem trivial compared with other applications on tonight’s agenda, but they are not minor to the residents of Bournside Road, many of whom have lived there for 30-40 years and have a deep affection for the area.  None are against house extensions – there are plenty in the road – but they are upset by the size of what is proposed at No. 5, which is why there are nine objections from people who have never objected to anything in their lives by felt compelled to comment on this.  The recommendation to approve is flawed, with over emphasis on the inclusion of a set-back from the front of the house.  Council policy is not just concerned with a set-back, but with ensuring that extensions are subservient, do not dominate the existing building or erode the space around it.  This proposal is massive, wide and deep.  It overwhelms the original house, and has a very large truncated crown roof hidden behind a dummy pitch roof at the back, because a roof with the correct pitch to the house would be ridiculously tall over an extension as wide as this.  However, because the materials and windows match, the officer says the proposal is ‘well-considered’.  The extension will be extremely prominent from Hatherley Park, is not good design, is a very wide and substantial addition that will completely erode the character of the existing house and the space to the side of it.   Residents of No. 3 will be most affected, mainly from the 14m two-storey side wall, just 1.5m from the boundary.  They will lose afternoon sun and also privacy with the Juliet balcony overlooking their garden.  The officer says there is a variety of houses and extensions in the road, it is not in a conservation area, and the house isn’t listed, implying that a lesser standard might be acceptable here.  This can’t be true – the NPPF is clear that good design is the key aspect of sustainable development and should contribute to making places better for people to live in.  At this end of the road, there is visual harmony – Nos. 5 and 7 are twin houses, and No. 10 is almost identical. Various features are echoed in other houses which create the charm and character of the area, and attractive views to the side through to Hatherley Park, which will be lost if this extension is built.  The extension should be narrower and shorter – it is all a question of scale.  The proposed house will double in size, the space around it will be eroded, and it will harm the neighbour’s living condition, all contrary to the Local Plan. 

Mr Russell Ranford, agent, in support

The application being considered tonight followed pre-application advice from Gary Dickens, who suggested narrowing the width to create a larger gap between the first-floor elements of the proposed side extension and No 3 Bournside Road – this advice was taken on board and the gap was increased to 5 metres.  A detailed analysis of the gaps between properties along both sides of the road between numbers 3 and 20 confirmed the average gap is 4.45m, with gaps ranging from 2m to 5.9m, so the 5m gap here is 0.5m above the average.  A design steer was taken from 19 Bournside Road, which recently completed a similar extension, albeit with a smaller gap between the extension and the neighbouring property.  As the officer report sets out, the proposals are in accordance with the SPD on Residential Alterations and Extensions, published in 2008, which states that side extensions can achieve subservience by being recessed from the front elevation and having a lower ridge height – this proposal has both. Given the generous plot size, the proposed extension will integrate well and not be a detriment to the existing building’s character.  Bournside Road is characterised by detached houses, but there is a vast range of building sizes and forms, and this proposal respects the street scene and character.  The residents of No. 7 are concerned about the proposed high-level side window and rooflight causing light pollution, but these concerns about harm are perceived rather than actual.  In addition, the window and rooflight could be included in a single storey extension under permitted development, making it inappropriate to demand design changes to appease their neighbour.  Over all, the scheme is in total accordance with the NPPF and the local plan, constitutes sustainable development and creates no actual harm.

Member debate:

PB:  Bournside Road is very special, and the spacing of each house on its plot is significant.  Considers this design to be good – although this is always subjective – and notes that there are all sorts of designs and extensions in Bournside Road.  This proposal respects the neighbouring properties.  Has seen far worse-looking extensions.

KH:  knows Bournside Road very well, and considers it a real shame from an architectural and personal taste point of view that these changes are being put forward on this property.  The curved bay window, the proportions, the design and character of the house are all very pleasing, and are seriously compromised by this proposal.  However, there is no proposal to change the bay, and it won’t cause any further on-street parking problems in the area.  Is mindful of a theme he regularly returns to – that people have the right to do what they want with their own properties – and is not persuaded that we should stop them, but is very to see the inherent character of this house lost.

CN:  is conflicted here.  Agrees with PB that every house in the road is different, but has sympathy with the speaker, who made an interesting point about subservience – this extension is very large.  The proportions of the original house are overwhelmed – are there any examples of this elsewhere?

DS:  looking at the plan at the moment, including the gap between the garage and the house, gives an idea of what the extension will do - it will be less than half the width of the garage.  The proposal coordinates and compresses façade – has no problem with it.

MJC, in response:

-       It is fair comment to say that this is a large extension, but there is no policy to prevent this per se.  The SPD shows how they can be achieved; setting an extension back makes it subservient.  It could be narrower, but Members need to consider whether or not it is actually harmful?  How well does it sit in the street, which has a varied mix of properties?  Is the design comfortable in its setting?  This is the nub of the officer recommendation.

MC:  has looked at the drawings and the plan view of the garage – it appears square rather than rectangular?  Can officers confirm whether it is a functional garage?

MJC, in response:

-       It isn’t used for a car – like most garages nowadays, it is used for storage.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT