Agenda item

Officer introduction:

BH told Members that this proposal for a two-storey addition to the front of the house followed a recent permitted application, where revisions were sought to remove the proposed single storey.  Councillor Payne, who requested the application be brought to Committee, considers that the proposal adds character to an otherwise bland proposal, but officers consider that it will harm the street scene.  Their recommendation is therefore to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Applicant, in support

Moved to the property six years ago, as a long-term family home.  The property was tired and in need of significant repairs; has invested a great deal of time and effort in extensive restoration to get the house to its current condition.  Loves the area, and would like to stay here as long as possible.  Neighbours are supportive, and the Parish Council is happy with the scheme.  Would not propose anything which would damage the neighbourhood, streetscene or house itself.   It is an unusual house, with the main and original door facing the garden; the door to Finchcroft Lane is not used or accessible, and with the drive and access of Noverton Lane, the house is naturally accessed from that side.  Is asking for one change to the existing permission – the provision of a first floor above an already approved ground floor extension, with gabled roof to match the existing house.     The planning officer acknowledges that whether or not this is a front or rear extension isn’t the issue; it states that the extension will not be subservient to the main house and will dominate the west elevation.  In fact, the gables are lower than the existing main roof, the proposal will not add to the footprint, and will be no closer to the road than what is already approved.  Therefore feels that the extension is subservient, and that the design represents continuity of the original building and previous developments.  Due to previous alterations, there are different stairs and varying levels in the house, making space quite inefficient.  The extension will help the house to function better as a family home.  If it was harmful to the streetscene, there would have been at least one objection, or objection from the  Parish Council, but there have been neither. The guidelines in the SPD are only guidelines, not policy or rules.  The house is unusual and different from the more standard type of housing covered by the SPD – it would be impossible fort the SPD to cover all scenarios.    Considering all these points, feels that the extension is appropriate to the house and streetscene.

Member debate:

SW:  supports officers on this; has no truck with whether it is a front or rear extension.  It is a fact that the footprint is the same – doesn’t like the idea of ground floor coming out, but cannot change that.  But with the second storey and two more gables, the extension is certainly not subservient – the result appears far too muddled.   We have to accept ground floor extension – that already has planning permission – but two more gables, well forward of original building is too much.  Cannot support the application.

BF:  tempted to say ‘here we go again’ with subservience.  This proposal is clearly not an architectural gem.  The house is a stock build of the 1960s, which has been much altered.  Houses evolve over time, and it is the personal choice of the owners as to how this happens.  These owners need more space.  Finds it very difficult to vote against this application, and will need more persuading in order to do so. 

TO:  doesn’t see how this can be described as subservient.  Cannot support it – it looks ugly. 

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

5 in support

5 in objection

1 abstention

PB:  this is another tricky application.  Does consider the proposal to be subservient – the rooflines are lower.  The house is evolving, and doesn’t work as it is.  Doesn’t agree that it is ugly, although it is not the best design.  Notes that the Parish Council has made no comment, and that the ward councillors are supportive.  Will therefore use his casting vote as Chairman to reject the officer recommendation and support the proposal.

PERMIT, subject to conditions to be worked out by officers, in agreement with Chair and Vice-Chair.