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

This application relates to the erection of two storey side and part two, part single storey rear extension to provide additional living accommodation. The application had been previously submitted to the meeting held on 18 March 2021 where the Committee decided to undertake a site visit. The site visit was held prior to the meeting. The application site is a large two storey semi-detached villa on the north side of Norman Road. The property has an elevated ground floor and is accessed by a flight of steps leading to a substantial decorative entrance porch. There is also a flat roofed bay to the ground floor and basement levels. At the rear there is a three-storey outrigger shared with the adjoining property. On the side of the outrigger is a substantial bay window, glazed on three sides. There is a substantial attached garage, 8 metres deep by 2.3 metres wide, at the side of the main body of the property infilling the space between the building and the site boundary. The property has a hipped roof with decorative brick eaves detailing. The outrigger has a dual pitch roof with a gable to the rear elevation. The building was originally of brick construction, this has, together with the neighbouring property been painted in a combination of off white and grey.

The Planning officer referred to an additional late submission received from Manchester Civic Society, that raised a number of issues as part of an objection to the application.

The Committee heard the objection from a resident representative for local residents and the Rusholme and Fallowfield Civic Society. Concerns were raised on the two extension to the rear of the property within permitted development policy. It was considered that the proposed width does not fall within planning policy. The Committee was asked to consider an additional condition to require the reinstatement of the front garden area.

The applicant addressed the Committee on the application. The applicant made reference to the declaration of a personal interest by a member of the committee regarding the neighbour living in the adjoining property to the application property.

The member concerned had declared a personal interest at the start of the meeting and had been removed from the meeting for the application.

Councillor Ahmed Ali (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee and referred to the property in relation to the conservation area. The extension and right to light, in particular the 45 degree and 25 degree rules. Reference was made to the front of the property and the applicant was requested to undertake planting scheme to the front of the garden area. Councillor Ahmed stated that his interest is objective.

The planning officer responded to the points raised and reported that the application for full planning permission had been submitted and would be considered on its merit. The Committee was advised permitted development planning policy applied only to a single storey extension aspect of the application. The points raised on the planting and the inclusion of additional condition were not considered to be reasonable for the reason that the application relates to development to the rear of the property only. The Committee was advised that loss of light and in particular the 45 degree rule had been considered but was not a substantial concern taking into account the surrounding properties distance and position. The application had therefore been recommended for approval based on its merits.

A member of the Committee referred to the point raised by the applicant regarding the declaration of a personal interest by a member of the Committee. The committee was reminded of the inclusion of a photo containing a political poster that had been raised during the previous consideration of the application and how it had been disregarded by the Committee. The member asked for an explanation of the speaking rights of ward members on an application within their ward.

The Council’s legal services representative provided an explanation on the procedure relating to the declaration of interests by members of the Committee and the opportunity to address the Committee when an application is within their ward, as detailed within the Council Constitution. It was explained that Councillor Lovecy had indicated that she had a personal interest in the application and this had arisen since the previous consideration of the application and she had indicated she would withdraw from the meeting and would not take part in the consideration of the application.

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

A member referred to the length of the extension at the rear of the property and that it did not extend further than the neighbouring property.

The Planning officer reported that the extension length is 6 metres and would be 4.5 metres longer to the extension in neighbouring property.

The Chair invited Councillor Lovecy to respond to the statement made by the applicant as ward Councillor.

Councillor Lovecy addressed the Committee in response to the comments made and did not comment on the application being considered. The Committee was informed that since the last consideration of the application the circumstances had changed and this had been brought to the attention of the Chair and the Committee’s legal services representative in advance of the meeting. For that the reason Councillor Lovecy had declared a personal interest and would take no part in the consideration of the application.

A member referred to the size of the garage on the property and asked if was there sufficient room for the property owner to store a vehicle and cycles.

The Planning Officer reported that the garage would store refuse bins, cycles and a vehicle. The front of the property could also be used to park vehicles.

Members referred to the inclusion of the condition to prevent the property from becoming an HMO (condition 5) to prevent use as C3 property. Also, the point was made that the retention of the front walls and gate posts would benefit the visual aspect property and surrounding area.

A member referred to the front garden to the property and the suggestion of the property sitting within a conservation area and requested a condition be included to retain the front walls and gate posts.

The planning Officer reported that the property is not listed and did not sit within a conservation area. The Committee was advised that adding a condition was not a reasonable inclusion and therefore, would be difficult to legally defend. 

The Director of Planning reported that there would be no legal enforceability to the condition suggested for the retention of the front boundary wall and gate and front garden of the property. The property is not within a conservation and is not listed. The Committee was advised that discussion could be held with the applicant prior to the issue of the decision notice to reach a compromise on the retention of the wall and gate posts and garden.  

Councillor Shaukat Ali moved a proposal for the Committee to undertake a site visit.

Councillor Riasat seconded the proposal.

In agreeing to the application the Committee noted and welcomed the inclusion of Condition 5 (Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended by The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010), to prevent the property from being used as a House in Multiple Occupation.

The Committee also noted the undertaking by the Director of Planning to discuss with the applicant, the retention of the front boundary wall and gate posts

Decision

The Committee agreed the application as detailed in the report submitted and subject to the conditions included.

(Councillor Lovecy declared a personal interest in the application for the reason that she knows the neighbour adjoining to the property the application is for and took no part in the discussion or vote on the application.)