Agenda item

Senior Planning Officer, Lucy White, introduced the report regarding the erection of two storey side and single storey front extensions, wood burner flue in roof of proposed two storey extension and velux window in front roof slope of main dwelling.  The previous application for a two story side extension had been granted in April on submission of revised drawings showing a reduction in width and depth.  The applicant had now submitted plans for a single storey pitched roof extension, which extended the front elevation of the main dwelling by 2.6 metres.  Furthermore the characteristics of Mandarin Way were open plan in nature, and this would detract from the overall appearance of the area as the proposed development almost doubled the footprint of the property. 

This application was put to the committee at the request of Councillor Fisher, however the officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

Public Speaking:

Mr K Taylor, applicant, in support

Mr Taylor told the committee that he had moved into the house in 1972 when it was built and had paid an extra £200 for the land at the side.  In 1982 he had applied to Tewkesbury Borough Council to build an extension which included wheelchair access, but had not carried out the work.  In his previous application to this planning committee, he had reduced the area of the extension from 12.25 sq m to 10.2 sq m., but now this was no longer sufficient as, due to various operations and medical needs, he required sleeping accommodation downstairs and wheelchair access.  Mr Taylor thanked Councillor Fisher for his support and reiterated that all he requested was a downstairs bedroom.

Councillor Bernard Fisher, friend of applicant, in support

Councillor Fisher spoke in support of this application, advocating that we all live longer and with an ageing population Mr Taylor was trying to make provision for this, with a single storey downstairs bedroom built on the land he had bought to the side of his house.  Councillor Fisher had issues with the refusal reasons cited.  The row of dwellings were not identical with two detached houses, four dormer roofs, six flat fronted, two with porches and the line of the row was staggered.  The extension would not cause harm to the architectural integrity of the building or the unacceptable erosion of open space around the existing building as outlined in CP7. Councillor Fisher also highlighted that the existing hedge which can be conditioned and which is necessary for privacy would conceal the single story extension.

Finally no objections from neighbours had been received.

Councillor Fisher then left the Chamber for this item.

Member debate

Councillor Stennett agreed with Councillor Fisher’s comments.  He concurred that there would be minimal effect on the neighbourhood and with no objections having been received, Councillor Stennett moved to permit the application.

Other members also favoured permitting the application on the grounds that the house was at the end of a row, tucked away in a corner with land dropping away at the side, surrounded by a wall and a hedge.

In reply to members’ comments to permit, the Planning Officer referred again to the doubling in size of the footprint which would alter the building line and pointed out that the hedge / wall would have to be removed so the pitched roof would be visible above that.

Councillor Sudbury questioned the officer about the materials to be used and suggested that if it was proposed to permit that a condition be applied on the subject of the materials to be used.  This was agreed.

Vote taken on Councillor Stennett’s move to permit

11 in support

MOTION WON

APPLICATION PERMITTED