Agenda item

The Senior Planning Officer, Martin Chandler, introduced the report regarding a three storey side extension, having received a revised submission after two previous refusals in June 2013 and November 2013.  The officer pointed out the difference between the recently refused scheme and the one now proposed was a 500mm reduction in the width and depth of the extension at first and second floor level and as such did not feel the alterations were sufficient enough to alleviate the impact on the neighbouring property at No.5.  The application had been brought back to committee as the request of Cllr Jordan. The officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

Public speaking:

Mr Ralph Staelens, applicant, in support

In support of his application Mr Staelens told the committee that he had lived at 4 Keynsham Bank for 6 years, in an attractive three storey town house property in a terrace of four houses set back from the London Road.  There was a wide path and side yard with tall trees to the right.   The interior had small rooms and a central staircase which was restrictive and two bedrooms on the third floor that were used and thus prevented family from staying.  In addition, there was no sun in the side yard due to the tall trees, but morning sun at the back and sun at the front in the afternoon.

A further concern of his was security, having had several burglaries during the past 6 years with the property being accessed from back via the side wall.

His proposal was for a sympathetic three storey side extension with additional bedroom and family bathroom on the third storey, dining room/family room on the second storey and a garage and utility room on the ground floor.  This would address the bedroom situation and security.

The applicant also felt that the present 2 storey premises gave an unbalanced look, whilst a 3 storey premises would give a pleasing visual aspect.

The neighbour at 5 Keynsham Road who was objecting was not present but had submitted a letter.

Member debate

Councillor Stennett indicated that he could not see a problem with the extension and that with the hedge and trees at the side, the effect of the extension on the neighbour’s patio would be negligible.  It was also further away than the other houses.  He also agreed with the two story imbalance.  Councillor Stennett moved to permit the application.

Councillor Chard was also in favour of the application, as from the planning view inspection he felt there was plenty of room.

Councillor Seacome recognised there would be an impact on the neighbouring house and commented that the four houses were built as a unit and by adding an extension it would destroy the symmetry of those four houses and aesthetically it would not work.

Councillor Hay did not favour permitting the application on grounds of the light impact and failing the light test as well as its close proximity to the neighbouring house.  In addition Councillor Sudbury referred to the useful planning view visit and in her opinion she could see the reason for the officers recommendation for refusal.

Vote taken on Councillor Stennett’s move to permit

4 in support

8 in objection

MOVE LOST

APPLICATION REFUSED