Agenda item

CH introduced the application, which is exactly the same as the scheme originally submitted in 2011.  This was subsequently amended, to achieve a set-back of the two-storey element and a red brick finish, and permission was duly granted.  The applicant has now re-submitted the original scheme, which is not in line with CP7 or the SPD on extensions regarding subservience of the extension.

Mr Collard, applicant, in support

The information and photographs submitted by SFPlanning highlight that the SPD allows for what is proposed.  Has lived in the house for some years – it is detached and a bit scruffy, but he and his wife love the area and would like their children there.  Is happy to make a big financial commitment in order to achieve the ideal family home, and is on friendly terms with the neighbours, who all support the proposal.  There are two changes from the permission granted:  the insulated rendering, rather than red brick, is proposed for practical reasons.  The bricks are in poor condition – the render will protect them and also reduce heat loss by 80%, so ensuring lower heating bills.  There is a mix of rendered and red brick houses in the NauntonPark area.  Regarding the first floor setback, the proposal would have less impact than others, and to set it back would be damaging to the overall design.  The aim is not simply to make the house symmetrical, but to build in a properly designed way.  There are examples of semi-detached houses extended without any setback in the conservation area, proving that it is not always required.  There have been no negative comments from neighbours, and a setback would reduce the amount of space available for the growing family.  If Members decide to support the officer’s recommendation, requests that there be a separate vote on the render.

Member debate:

SW:  this was the subject of great debate on planning view, with the question asked:  if this house was being built from scratch now, would we allow it?  The answer is yes, and is therefore struggling with the argument that the extension needs to be set back.  Recalls an application which was refused because it extended 1m beyond the garage but was subsequently allowed at appeal.  Revisited the house once the extension had been built and noted it was not overbearing as had been stated in the report.  This property is currently smaller than the houses on either side and may be slightly larger when the extension is done, but it will fit perfectly.  Regarding the render, if it helps with energy conservation, it should be allowed; if it doesn’t, it should remain brick.  Is happy with the design.

KS:  will support the application.  Has utmost respect for the Conservation Officer and usually agrees with what is written but on this occasion doesn’t.  This street is in her ward, and she knows it well – it is tree-lined, with Edwardian redbrick houses, but this proposal won’t harm that.  The house is at the end of a set of three houses.  The other two have extensions; a further block to the left will fit in and the render finish is not out of keeping.  Regarding the set back for the upper floor, this will make the roofline look cluttered.  This is a better scheme that the approved permission.  Some of the bricks are look very old and tired, and the extension will be built of new bricks which don’t match, resulting in a hotch-potch look – a render finish will remedy this.  Although close to the conservation area, the house does not have any architectural merit and is not a part of the town’s heritage.  We have to allow people to extend and improve their homes to suit their lifestyle and, in this case, improve thermal efficiency.  This proposal is the best solution here.

MS:  agrees with the last two speakers.  Regarding the set back, thinks the extension looks better flush, and if he lived in the house opposite would rather look at one integral building.  Would not be supportive if this was an Edwardian house, but objecting to this scheme is rather pernickety.  Regarding the render, does not think it will do too much damage, depending on the colour.

RW:  agrees that the colour of the render is important.  This application is unusual regarding the response from neighbours – is used to reading large numbers of objections to proposals.  Does not think they are only supportive because they have a good rapport with the applicant, but also because the design is good.  Beauty - and design – is in the eye of the beholder, and some designs are a little too clever, but if the neighbours are happy that the proposed scheme will blend in, who are we to say it won’t.  Was not on planning view, but is happy to vote in support of the scheme on account of what the neighbours and other Members say.  Regarding the render, subject to ensuring that it blends in with other houses in the street, will be happy to support this too.

PJ:  for various reasons, will move for approval of this application.  We can rely on local neighbours to tell us when there are issues, but none have been raised, so we can be confident that the proposal doesn’t fall foul of CP4.  Understands that setbacks are required for a reason, but disagrees with the officers here, and thinks in this case, the extension as requested will have a positive impact on the building.  Is not keen on render as a rule but sees the argument for it here.  Moves to approve, with conditions to be drawn up and approved by the Chair and Vice-Chair. 

AM:  supports this move to permit.  Considers this scheme superior to the approved one – the setback extension was OK, but this is a step forward on that.  The neighbours support it and he will too.

BF:  will also support it.  Regarding the render, what PJ says may be true, but these bricks are 50-60 years old and will be difficult to match.  Is amazed that the recommendation is to refuse because of the SPD – that document is for guidance and to be taken into account, but isn’t gospel.

AC:  will also vote in support.  This is a good design and development, and the neighbours support it.

BD:  will vote for it.  Suggests a condition regarding the colour of the render – this must be in keeping.  Policy on building on and setback seems out of date, and should be discussed at some point.

PT:  will vote in support of this, but reluctantly.  Is not bothered about the setback – was confused but understands that this was required by policy, but thinks it looks OK.  However, is concerned about the rendering.  There are three rendered houses in the street: one is a big, grey place – a statement on its own – and the others are further back.  Would prefer it not to be rendered and is surprised that this is needed for energy-saving – surely the house has cavity walls which can be insulated? 

RG:  in the report, the conservation officer lists 12 reasons why we should stick to policy - everyone likes the proposal but our rule is to enforce policy. If we stick to policy, wonders whether this will conflict with the NPPF paragraph 65 which refers to concerns being mitigated by good design and other benefits.  Is normally a stickler – we write the policies and should stick by them – but as there seems to be some conflict here with NPPF 65, may have to make an exception here.

PH:  thanks RG for raising this – is also a great stickler for policy, and he makes a good point here.  Has a huge problem with the render, where all the properties around are red brick, and recalls a house in Charlton Park which was rendered and sticks out like a sore thumb.  If it was just for cosmetic reasons, would not vote for it, but for the reasons given by the applicant, hopes it will be OK and will not grate every time she passes the house. 

CH, in response:

-          to be clear, officers look at applications against the written guidelines on extensions, and feel that a very large proportion of the side extension could be achieved with a setback;

-          of course, the word ‘normally’ must be applied, and Members have made their feelings very clear that in this case, the proposal is acceptable to them;

-          suggested conditions will include implementation of the approved plan and a sample of the proposed render.

SW:  regarding the business of set back, do we need to revisit this?  It would be a very useful tool if this application was on the other side of the road, and should not be removed altogether, but in this instance, it is not necessary.

Vote on PJ’s move to approve, including the render finish

13 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT