Agenda item

Planning application documents

Officer introduction

VH told members that the application site relates to a 2-storey side extension on an existing detached 2-storey property in Merestones Drive.  It is at committee as the request of the local councillor, due to neighbour concerns.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking

Councillor Harman

Is speaking as a local councillor, although some of the properties in Merestones Drive come under Warden Hill – the proposal has implications for the wider Merestones area, as set out in his letter.   Called the application on the grounds that it would be overbearing to the adjacent bungalow, being very close to the boundary; it would have a significant impact on that property, with overlooking and loss of light.   In addition, it would be detrimental to the appearance of the dwelling from the road, as well as increasing density and being out of keeping with this well-laid-out estate. Members viewed the site on Planning View, and the key point is to recognise the juxtaposition between the two-storey house and the adjacent bungalow.  The extension is very close to the boundary, and will have a real impact on No. 58 and the area generally.  Hopes that Committee will consider rejecting the application, for a different revised proposal which is more considerate of neighbours.   

Member debate:

TO:  on Planning View, felt the impact on No. 58 would be overbearing – the proposed extension comes virtually to the fence, and will have an impact, being very close to the kitchen door.  Cannot support the scheme.

PM:  looking at the site location drawing, the extension just impinges on the upper right hand corner of No. 58.  The compass at the bottom shows that sun will rise in the east and move round to west, confirming that the new extension won’t cause any shading of the bungalow.  Looking at the footprint of No. 58, the extension will come closer to the kitchen with an obscure glass door, but there is a large amount of living space elsewhere in the house, and the extension won’t be seen from the garden.  Is minded to agree with officers – the extension will be closer to the neighbouring property, but within the permitted distance.  Also wonders if it would come under permitted development rights if it was a single-storey extension.

DB:  reiterates what TO said:  this  extension appears to be coming out right on top of the neighbours’ boundary, and at two storeys high it will have an overbearing effect on the bungalow.

JP:  we know from the report that the extension complies with all regulations, light tests and so on.  Having said that, still believes it is overbearing and has potential to have adverse effect on the amenity of No. 58.  Would like the applicant to look at alternatives to this end of house extension.

PB:  on face of it, it looks quite a tricky situation, but on Planning View, was able to get a  real perspective,  much better than that provided by the drawings.  PM has described it well – there will be no loss of light, no shadowing, no loss of privacy, and the proposal backs onto the rear elevation, primarily the kitchen door.  The extension will have no impact on street scene, situated at the end of a cul-de-sac.  Will support the officer recommendation.

VH, in response: 

-       the property has permitted development rights for a single-storey in the same position; a  two-storey extension requires planning permission.

SW:  is sorry not to have been on Planning View, but has been looking on Google Earth, and at the size of the footprint of No. 58 compared with No. 56.  No. 56 has two storeys which would suggest it may be a bit overbearing, but in grand scheme, No. 58 has larger footprint, and the impact is therefore likely to be minimal.  On balance, therefore, is with officers on this.

DS:  the first impression on walking into the kitchen of No. 58 on Planning View was how dark it is anyway; given the level of darkness, this won’t be reduced that much with the extension.  Also takes PM’s point about sun, rising and setting on other side of house – will go with officer recommendation.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

3 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT