The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

A site visit will take place for members of the Planning and Highways Committee prior to the meeting.

This application relates to the erection of a two-storey side extension and a single storey rear extension together with the installation of a front dormer, including a roof light and a dormer to the rear, porch and canopy to form additional living accommodation.

The proposal includes at ground floor level the addition of a kitchen, hallway, WC and morning room. The first floor includes two bedrooms and a utility room and the roof space includes two bedrooms and a shower room.

The Planning Officer provided an update including drawing Members attention to the late representation report.  The update related to the advice that if Members agree with the recommendation then it will be necessary to revise the wording of condition 9 which relates to tree protection in order to ensure an appointed tree consultant supervises the excavation element and ensure that adequate protection is in place to ensure root protection. To also include an additional condition to require and agree proposed levels within the rear garden. The Planning Officer also reported that additional correspondence had been received from a planning consultant representing a neighbouring occupier which claims that the advice given to Committee by officers within the report in relation to the assessment and conclusions reached on the impact of the Conservation Area is deficient and may be seriously and materially misleading. Reference is made to Section 72 of the Planning, Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act, Paragraph 193 and Paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The Planning Officer advised Members that the Planning Service was satisfied that the relevant guidance had been fully considered and taken into account in the assessment and recommendation made and is proportionate to the scheme proposed.

The Committee undertook a site visit to the site prior to the meeting.

The Chair invited the objector’s spokesperson to address the committee.

The objector’s spokesperson referred to points raised within the report and highlighted the negative impact the application would have the neighbouring property through the loss of amenity, the conservation area (history and character), street scene through the terracing effect of the design and impact on trees. The application did not provide a balanced design and the size of the development did not provide any public benefit with the loss of an affordable home. It was added that there was no necessity for a six bedroomed property.

The Planning Officer responded to the points raised and informed the Committee that the application had been substantially amended since it was first submitted. The concerns outlined had been addressed and met national standards regarding conservation areas and design. A gap was introduced to the design to prevent terracing effect and the investment being made to the property would benefit and enhance the area.

The applicant’s representative was not present at the meeting.

The Chair invited members of the Committee to ask questions and comment of the application.

A member referred to the width of the path at the side of the property and asked if it is sufficiently wide enough for a wheelie bin. Also, with reference to the rear garden, officers were asked what level the area would be.

It was reported that the width of the path had been raised with the applicant and the drawing submitted shows the path width is sufficiently wide for a wheelie bin. In response to the level of the rear garden the Committee was informed that the plan submitted stated that the grassy knoll would be retained. The proposed recommendation is that discussions would take place with the applicant and planning officers on the level of the garden.

A member referred to the size of the rear extension and the potential impact on the adjacent property and asked officers to explain the guidance on allowing an extension over 3.65metres.

The Committee was informed that the decision to agree the extension over the 3.65metres was considered acceptable due to the proposed building having a flat roof and its orientation. It was explained that the national guidance allows for larger extensions over 4 metres, with prior approval.

Councillor Andrews moved the recommendation to approve the application, subject to an amendment to Condition 9 and an additional condition relating to the rear garden level. Councillor Hitchen seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee approve the application, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report submitted, the amendment of Condition 9 and an additional condition regarding the rear garden level.

(Councillor Monaghan did not take part in the vote on the application.)