Construction of front extension, following demolition of existing front porch. Construction of part two-storey, part single storey rear extension, following demolition of existing extension, addition of raised decking, including external alterations (amended plans and description)
Minutes:
The Planning Officer presented the report and drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported that:
Since the publication of the committee report, a neighbour has notified the Local Planning Authority (LPA) of some statements and dimensions in the report they consider to be inaccurate. In-the-round, the LPA consider that the Committee report is fair in its content, and need only comment on the following three specific points:
The neighbour considers the following statement in Paragraph 5.15 of the report to be incorrect: 'a two-storey rear extension…. 19/00129/HOU at no.14, the dimensions of this extension are not dissimilar to those of the proposed extension'. The approved two-storey extension at no. 14 projected 2.2m from the rear elevation and was 3.5m wide. The current application's two-storey extension would project 4m from the rear elevation, and be approx. 4.4m wide.
The neighbour also notes that his objection reference to planning application 16/00824/HOU at 6 Blake Road has not been raised in the Committee report, the LPA will take this opportunity to rectify the omission, and with apologies. The neighbour considers the rear terrace at no. 6 to be equally pertinent to the current application. That terrace was approx. 4.7m deep, and was refused planning permission. The current application's terrace is 1.3m/1.6m deep (please see below).
Lastly, the neighbour measures the proposed terrace as 1.6m deep, while the Committee report states it is 1.3m deep. The terrace does indeed measure 1.6m deep from wall to edge of the first step, but the Applicant has explained that a safety balustrade would be necessary, set-in approximately 0.3m from the edge of the first step. In any event, in my opinion the difference of 0.3m is not material in its effect on amenity, and the Planning Inspector would consider any necessary conditions on such details were the appeal to be allowed.
The recommendations remained unchanged.
Two written deputations from Malcolm Cook and Tom Pasterfield were read out which were against granting of the application and were read out to the committee. A written deputation from the applicant was also read out. Deputations are not included in the minutes but can be viewed on the livestream on the following link Planning Committee 9 March 2021 on Livestream.
Members' Questions
In response to questions from members, the officer explained that:
The proposed extension would project 5m from the rear elevation which is the same as the extension at number 10. The owners at number 14 have planning permission for an extension of the same length.
There is a large raised terrace at number 6 which comprises raised decking. An extension is a built structure and therefore the planning considerations would be different. However the potential impact on neighbouring amenities would be assessed in both cases.
Members' Comments
It was noted that many householders on this slope build these type of extensions to take advantage of the view.
As there is already an extension of the same size at number 14, members felt that there was no reason to reject this application.
The first floor would be of a reasonable size and any potential overlooking of number 10 would be minimal given that there is a screen already in place.
People should be encouraged to adapt their homes to fit the needs of future generations.
RESOLVED
Grant delegated authority to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to advise the Secretary of State that the local planning authority would have determined that the application should be approved subject to the imposition of conditions, and to supply to the Secretary of State a copy of the relevant report and meeting minutes accordingly.