Agenda item

GD introduced the application as above, recommended for approval as set out in the officer report.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman, due to the numerous concerns from local residents.

Public Speaking:

Neighbour, in objection

The first point to make is that he has no objection in principle to the proposed extension at 6 Westal Park; it is the sheer size and overbearing impact on his home and amenities which is the problem. The lower windows of his property will face a blank wall, 7.5m high and 12m away.  Facing south-east, the early sun will be blocked out, and the proximity of the first floor windows will result in a loss of privacy, with his small garden and conservatory being overlooked.  The Design and Access statement justifies the size of the proposal, referring to similar-sized extensions being added to Nos. 12 and 15 Westal Park, but these had no impact on the immediate neighbours.  Moreover, No. 15 originally proposed a second staircase but this was removed on the advice of the planning department, reducing the footprint by 10%.  Nos. 3 and 8 had extensions similar to this, both of which were acceptable to other neighbours.  Thanked the Committee members for looking at the site, and hopes they will recognise that the objections are reasonable and encourage the applicant to submit a new proposal. 

Applicant, in support

Has lived in Westal Park for seven years, and would now like to adapt his home for multi-generational living, to accommodate growing children and elderly parents, when the time comes, rather than them going into residential care.  Has considered many design options over the last year, and Members will have noticed on their site visit that the houses in Westal Park have similar character but there are significant variations on theme.  Took pre-application advice last autumn and submitted plans, taking care to comply with the council’s policies for sustainable living, design, and the SPG for residential alterations.  The extension was subservient to the main dwelling, used existing materials, respected local design, and was set back from the neighbours.  After listening to officers’ concerns, withdrew the plans and has since made several changes to reduce the impact.  The width of the extension is reduced from 6.8m to 6.3m, so the gable wall is further from No. 7, and making the extension narrower than several garages and existing first floor extensions.  It also improves its subservience without compromising the internal accommodation.

The orientation of the houses is such that the sun has passed the front of No. 6 by 9am and is due east of No. 7, shining directly into its garden.  The front and rear first floor elevations are set back, so any additional overshadowing would only be very early in the morning if at all.  The light render finish, instead of brick, will also reflect more light.  The height of the extension has been further reduced, but an alternative loft conversion with a sloping roof would make bedroom unsuitable for caring for elderly people.  Several extensions on Westal Park are full height.

To reduce noise and respect privacy, there are no habitable rooms on the gable elevation, and just one external door to the rear garden, near the far corners of the gardens of Nos. 7 and 8, behind a six foot fence.  Retaining garage doors helps maintain the character of the house, and there is enough land for additional off-road parking should it be necessary, although this is a highly accessible location. 

The second staircase has raised fears of subdivision and setting a precedent, but is for amenity only – welcomes the proposed condition to control subdivision. 

The revised plans meet or exceed all the distance criteria set out in the SPG, and constitute sustainable development as promoted in the NPPF and newly-adopted JCS.  Hopes that Members will recognise the lengths to which has has gone to submit proposals which meet the needs of a modern ‘sandwich generation’ family whilst fully complying will council policies. 

Member debate:

There was none.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

The meeting ended at 6.30pm.