Agenda item

The Senior Planning Officer, Emma Pickernall, introduced the report regarding the proposal for a single storey rear extension and two-storey side extension including a single storey link to the garage.  The officer recommendation was to permit the proposal.

Public Speaking:

Dr Julian Richards, neigbour, in objection

Dr Richards said the key determining factors for their objection was the visual impact, impact on neighbouring properties and the impact on parking availability.

Regarding precedents, he did not consider that the earlier conversion of the garage to living accommodation at No.7 was a relevant precedent since the integrated garage was a constitutent element of the original build and there was no change to the front elevation or dimensions of the property.The proposed plans for no.3 represented a new precedent of linking a detached garage to the house, with a flat roof for the linking portion.  This would be an architectural development not in keeping with the existing builds in the close, where all rooflines are of pitched design, and could lead to a number of similar applications. The design and layout also represented a new precedent in terms of its being subservient to the main ridge line and front elevation, in two respects and he went on to give details.  He highlighted a further factual error in paragraph 1.2 of the report which described the existing single storey portion of no.3 as an extension which was in fact part of the original build of the property.

He went on to comment on the size of the proposed development. Whilst individual parts of the plans were described as "modest" by the planning officer, he challenged the view that the original combination of the separate components of the plan can be described as modest, since the plans represented an increase in the footprint of no.3 by a substantial percentage. The position of the property in a prominent position as one enters the close would mean that it would have a high visual impact on the general architecture in the close.  The size and close proximity of the wall to the boundary of the house at no.1, and the angle at which the two neighbouring properties were aligned, would mean that an extended no.3 would have a somewhat squashed in appearance and would structurally affect the street scene. This was something that Woodgate Close and most of its residents do not want to see and the parish council, amongst others, was particularly adamant about this point. It was also worth noting that previous applications for extensions around the close had not generated anything like the level of disquiet in the neighbourhood that has been generated by this application.

He also challenged the judgement that the plans would not have a harmful impact on light at the neighbouring property at no.1, since the readings had been taken in high summer.  The situations in other seasons would be very different, especially as the side extension is only just within the minimum distance of 0.9 m from the boundary line, and rises up just a few metres away from the side of no.1 to its southeastern corner.

Mr Andrew Davis, the applicant in support.

Mr David said that a number of councillors had been lobbied by local residents to call the original proposal into Planning Committee. However, the request for this to go to committee was subsequently withdrawn following the submission of their revised plans. He understood it had been brought to committee tonight as a result of an objection from the Parish council.

As the newest residents of Woodgate Close, having moved in only a few months ago, he appreciated that many people do not like change, especially when they have lived in their house for many years. However, there were a number of good reasons why they had decided to apply for planning permission to extend their house, which had not previously been extended.  Mr Davis explained that he was a home worker and needed the extra space for his office and he was keen for each of his three young sons to have their own bedroom.  The link to the garage was a practical consideration to improve the amenity and would not be visible from the road at the front of the house and therefore, would not affect the street scene.

He had taken account of his neighbours concerns (and others who didn’t live in Charlton Kings) and as a result had removed the room over the garage in the plans. He was pleased that the planning officer had recommended that permission be granted for this development so they could benefit from extending their home like many of their neighbours had already. He hoped his neighbours could now accept the planning officer's recommendation. The reason for the application was to future proof his house and to provide a long-term home for his family due to their desire to stay in Charlton Kings.

Member Debate

Councillor McCloskey suggested that a condition should be added to ensure that the parish council has sight of the building materials before commencement so they could satisfy themselves that the material would blend in with existing buildings.

Councillor Fisher suggested that permitted rights should be removed on the property as there would be little room for any further development on the site if this proposal was accepted.

Councillor Garnham commented on the angular nature of the site and the proximity of the extension to the neighbouring property at No 1 and questioned whether it complied with light tests for that property. He noted the loss of garden but accepted that that was an issue for the applicant and not for this committee.

In response the planning officer advised that the light tests carried out had assessed the general daylight at the adjoining property and she confirmed that the scheme did comply with the test results. She advised that it was not appropriate to withdraw permitted rights for the property as this would introduce an unnecessary level of control. Under the new development rules for extensions there was a procedure which could be applied regarding materials but in her opinion it would not be justified in this case.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT