Agenda item

EP introduced the application, which is recommended for refusal due to officers’ concerns about the proposals for the front of the dwelling being overly scaled and prominent. It is at committee at the request of Councillor Chard.

Public Speaking:

Mr Williams, applicant, in support

Is the applicant and owner of 72 Moorend Park Road, and wants to add an extra bedroom and en suite bathroom to the property to make it more functional without spoiling its charm.  Showed his designs to the neighbours with whom he has co-resided for many years - they were all happy with them, and their support is evident from their letters.  Planning officers were not happy with the size and mass; therefore withdrew his application, and re-consulted his architect with officers’ concerns about the dormer windows and re-submitted his application.  It was amended to include obscure glass to the rear, a reduction in the size of the dormer, a reduction in height, a hipped roof rather than gable, and a sunken balcony area.  The application is at committee for the sake of 400mm – not 700mm as stated – which is what the officers want to reduce the width of the window by, and 1800mm narrower than the windows below, the largest of which is 2.4m and the window proposed is 2.2m.  A dormer window in an identical building in the road is exactly 2m wide internally, and looks identical to what he is asking for, as well as being in the conservation area where his house is not.  The full height of the windows to the front of the property is hidden by the sunken balcony. To sum up, the property isn’t in a conservation area, the difference in size is 400mm not 700mm, and all the other officer’s wishes have been complied with.  It comes down to personal opinion; the architect considers the design architecturally pleasing and sympathetic with the dwelling and neighbourhood, and hopefully Members will agree.  The proposal has the support of people in the neighbourhood, and will allow his family to enjoy a light and airy building.

Councillor Chard, in support

The officer’s report states on Page 320 that the property is outside the conservation area, yet the documents referred to further down the page are to do with being in the conservation area.  Does not see the logic of this.  In his view, the case comes down to opinion – you like it or you don’t.  Notes there are no objections from neighbours - three have written in support and like the proposal; the applicant likes it – only the officers don’t.  Much has been made of the visual impact and the design, and the effect this will have on neighbouring properties, yet the neighbours support it.  The report states that the proposed dormer will be harmful to the appearance of the local area.  Moorend Park Road is a nice road but it isn’t The Avenue; it has a mixture of houses, so the requirement for consistency cannot be applied.  Officers say that the windows on the upper floor should be smaller than those below, but the picture of the house next door which he has circulated to Members shows larger windows upstairs.  The proposed new window will look more symmetrical with this.  To sum up, the dwelling isn’t in the conservation area, the neighbours like the proposal and there have been no objections from the public.  Asks Members to grant planning permission and allow Mr Williams to enhance his home as the architect has designed it.

Councillor Chard then left the Chamber before the start of the member debate.

Member debate:

KS:  is interested in this application - read the report carefully and understood all the officer wrote, but after being here and listening to the speakers, will not be supporting the officer recommendation.  Considers the harm is over-stated.  Has a real soft spot for these period bungalows, and something which allows it to continue as a loved, cherished family home ticks a lot of boxes.  This will improve the dwelling and safeguard it for the future, and give the occupants a better standard of life.  In addition, there are no objections from neighbours.  Thinks Members should vote to support the proposal.

MS:  agrees with KS and moves to permit the application.  All is in the eye of the beholder, and does not consider the window issue will cause any problem in that location.  It would not be right that every bungalow has a front-facing dormer, but in this location is fine. 

BF: has a bugbear with bungalows – there is always so much roof – and a dormer window breaks up the wide expanse of tiling well.  Honestly believes that this proposal is an improvement to the original dwelling. 

EP, in response:

-            the SPD on residential alterations includes a section on dormer windows.  These are the principles that planners use day in, day out for the bread and butter applications, and the stated principle relating to dormers is that if they are overly wide they can cause disruptive element in the street scene.  Subservience is important here, and if the dormer is wider than the windows below, the officers’ view is that it will dominate the roof slope;

-            in addition, this property is on a prominent street corner.  It is not in the conservation area, but is very close to it and in a very noticeable location;

-            the application has been considered against the principles laid down by the council on how to extend a property – the principles voted for by Members and which officers rely on every day.

KS:  will the roof stay in the same type of material?  This is not stated.  What will the roof look like?

EP, in response:

-            the proposal would retain and match the existing roof slope.

Vote on MS’s move to permit

9 in support

2 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT