Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

Councillor McCloskey left the chamber for the duration of the debate.

BH: Introduced the application, he explained that the proposal was for the first floor front extension over part of the existing garage to provide further living accommodation. He advised that it was at committee at the request of Councillor Stennett on behalf of the applicant and the officer recommendation was to refuse due to the poor design and the fact the structure would be at odds with the existing property and locality.

Mrs Mullens, applicant, in support

Advised that the purpose of the application was to bring two households together and adapt the space to accommodate her family of 4 and her elderly father. The application would essentially create a granny flat for her father allowing him to retain his independence and privacy as well as giving them adequate space to bring up a family. It would also prevent her father entering in to the care system.

She highlighted that the extension has the support from all of the neighbours, Prestbury parish council and the ward borough councils. She advised that a lot of time and consideration had been given to the design, considering neighbours on all sides. She further highlighted that the case planning officer had been consulted on two occasions prior to plans being submitted and they believed they had acted upon her advice. They were therefore surprised to see the report submitted to the committee and comments regarding poor design. They believed that the windows and general fenestration were in line with guidelines, however, were more than happy to amend them.

She highlighted that all of the surrounding houses were noticeably different in shape and size with alterations brought about by permitted alterations. She cited a case whereby  a neighbouring property was permitted to raise the roof however it was permitted due to the differing designs on the street. They therefore believed that their design was not out of character with other properties in the local area and believed there were a number of less sympathetically designed extensions locally.

She advised that with regards to the design and look of the proposed extension they would carefully select materials that would match with the existing property and use the same coloured window frames and layout the windows as recommend by the planning officer. She noted that all of the extension had been planned within the original footprint of the house and they had ensured the roof design was in line with building regulations.

Councillor Payne, in support

Had concerns in the process that has led to  recommendation for refusal, mainly because the plans before the committee were the second iteration of the scheme and the first had been withdrawn following discussions with the Planning Officer. The application before the committee was therefore a direct result of discussions with the planning officers and the current design had been submitted which incorporated suggestions put forward by the planning officer. He noted that changes suggested included changes to the roof height and changes to the fenestration, however, theses had now been cited as reasons for refusal. He highlighted that the officer comments regarding poor design and the fact it did not comply with local and national policy were not conveyed to the applicant during discussions. He noted that apart from some light loss to no 1010 due to overshadowing, officers do not consider the extension to have a significant harmful impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. He highlighted that there had also been no objections from neighbours on the Prestbury Parish Council. He acknowledged that the extension would be a prominent feature but the impact would be mitigated by the use of materials common to the existing dwelling and that and that a number of neighbouring properties had extensions that did not detract form the street scene.

Councillor Payne left the chamber for the debate.

DS: Noted that neighbouring properties had similar extensions and as such could not see the issue with the proposal. He further acknowledged the benefits of preventing someone entering the care system.  

SW: Agreed that whilst it was not a planning consideration, preventing someone entering the care system is something that should be considered. Felt that the proposed front elevation was more acceptable than the existing and the design would make a much more attractive building.

RH: Had concerns about the central window, however, acknowledged that the house next door mirrors this designs. She also highlighted that architecturally all the houses on the estate were different.

BF: Felt that the garage roof dominates the existing property and the new proposal would actually improve the design.

MC: Echoed comments  of committee regarding neighbouring properties and agreed that it was an interesting design. 

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

0 in support

11 in objection

0 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

DO: Suggested the following reasons for deviating from the officer’s recommendation:

-       That the committee find the proposal compatible with the mixture of styles and designs within the area that are as acceptable and in line with the local plan policies.

-       He suggested a condition regarding the time, accordance with the plans and materials be imposed.

Vote on reasons for deviating from the officer’s recommendation

11 in support

0 in objection

0 abstentions

CARRIED