Agenda item

CS described the application as above, which is at committee at the request of Councillors McKinlay and Whyborn.  The recommendation is to refuse as officers feel the proposal will not be subservient and will have an overbearing impact.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Anna Perks, applicant, in support

Wants to create a beautiful home for her family of three boys in this lovely area, and has worked hard on the plans, reducing the size a number of times.  Thought the final submitted version satisfied all the guidance, so it was distressing when the officer recommended refusal for the proposal.  In view of the existing single-storey kitchen on the back of the house, it is an over-exaggeration to say that the proposal will be 6.1m from the original rear wall at ground floor level and 4.95m at first floor level. The first floor extension will be 3.5m from the original rear wall, to create a master bedroom with ensuite, and the ground floor extension could be 6m under permitted development.The two-storey side extension, single-storey elevation to the rear, and porch are all considered acceptable by the officer. The proposed first floor extension to the rear will not be visible, will not be oppressive or result in any loss of light to neighbouring properties, and is only 0.5m bigger than a similar extension down the road.  There have been no letters of objection, but two letters of support, one from each neighbour. In light of these facts, is struggling to understand how refusal is in public interest, and therefore requests that Members support these improvements to her home.

Councillor Whyborn, in support

One of the functions of Planning Committee is to apply common sense to making decisions, so that we do not end up with ‘planning by numbers’.  Admittedly, the proposed extension is larger than normal guidelines, but having spoken to neighbours in the last 24 hours, they are happy with it.  These semi-detached plots have narrow fronts and very long back gardens.  This proposal will extend quite a long way back but neighbours are happy with the state of affairs.  The family wants to extend the house in order to continue living there; if they can’t, they will have to move.  It is a larger than normal extension, but it passes the light test.  Who are we to tell people what is acceptable? Common sense must prevail.  There are no objections from the Parish Council.  Understands the reasons for the officer recommendation and the need to protect the general principle, but we are often told that every application should be considered on its own merits.  This proposal should be a splendid example of that, and not be decided by box-ticking.

Member debate:

MS:  feels the same as Councillor Whyborn.  On Planning View, walked down the garden and looked back at the houses, noting the number of extensions on adjacent houses – the proposal won’t stand out or be particularly noticed.  The development at the front will enhance the appearance of the house.  Moves to permit.

AM:  MS got there first and stole his thunder.  The application doesn’t look significantly different from others in the road, the neighbours don’t object, Up Hatherley Parish Council doesn’t object – so one might think there can be nothing wrong with the application.

BF:  notes the suggested refusal reason but will support the move to permit.

HM:  the applicant mentioned a nearby extension which was approved recently and is very similar.  Can officers explain the difference between that and this?

CN:  on Planning View, Members thought that this development looked the same as the one nearby, and officers were going to check the details to see if this is the case.  Do they have any further information?

PT:  was going to ask the same question.  Will support the application, but is interested to know about the difference in size between this and the neighbouring developments.

CS, in response:

-          the applicant mentioned that there had been two letters in support of the application.  For the record, these were submitted with the application, not as part of the neighbour consultation, which is why the two letters are not acknowledged in the representations breakdown in the report;

-          regarding similar extensions in the area, No 327 Hatherley Road was granted permission for a two-storey side and rear extension and single-storey rear extension, which is 4m in length beyond from rear wall – this was scaled down by officers;

-          the reason for officers’ concern with this application is the cumulative effect of the various extensions, even though the impact of these has been scaled down;

-          in terms of square meterage, basic calculations show that the original property is 95 sq m, and with the proposed extension it will be 194 sq m – more than double the size;

-          the proposals are therefore not subservient, and will overwhelm the original property, which is why officers have recommended refusal.

PB:  has viewed the property and understands where officers are coming from, but considers this to be a subjective view.  Will this proposal have an impact on the area?  No.  Will it provide a reasonable family home?  Yes.  Is therefore happy to support the scheme.

Vote on MS’s move to permit

8 in support

4 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT