Decision details

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a first floor extension, two-storey rear extension, single-storey front extension and fenestration alterations to an existing bungalow.

[Note1: The Planning Officer responded to queries raised by the applicant in an email addressed to the planning Committee. The applicant had raised the following queries:

·                The applicant stated that within the proposal the description was defined incorrectly.  The Planning Officer commented that the description given within the proposal had been a true consideration of the proposed application.

·                The applicant claimed he had addressed all matters raised during the application stage.  The Planning Officer commented on two changes from the recommendations that were raised which had not been addressed, these included; to reduce the depth of the rear extension by at least 0.3m and to hip the rear gable. 

·                Applicant claimed hedging was part of the required boundaries which were deemed to be acceptable.  The Planning Officer stated that hedging would not constitute development in planning terms.

A Member stated that it had not been within the Council’s Policy to accept front extensions. Whilst acknowledging this, the Planning Officer explained that the application for the front extensions was assessed as a whole and not a two-storey, which would have made it unacceptable according to the SPD Policy.

Some Members were supportive of the application stating that the proposal had presented its own distinct identity which would have an acceptable impact of character in view of the surrounding dwellings.

Members raised concerns on some of the issues within the scheme which included the extension would have a ridge height of 9.1m, a depth of 13.25m (which is actually 0.3m deeper than that of the refused application PLAN/2017/1256) and a width of 9.95m.  This would create a large bulk and massing which would be considered cramped and overdeveloped within the plot and not in keeping with the form of neighbouring houses on Hermitage Road.  Arguments were put forward by some Councillors that the application should be refused and that approval may undermine future argument against future front extension proposals.

In accordance to Standing Order 22.2, the votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                 Cllrs S Ashall, I Eastwood, N Martin, M Whitehand

TOTAL: 4

Against:                                   Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, G Chrystie, L M N Morales

TOTAL: 4

Present but not voting:            Cllr G Cundy (Chairman)

TOTAL: 1

The application was therefore not refused.

Councillor Aziz proposed and Councillor Boote seconded a motion to approve the application.  In accordance with the Standing Order 22.2, the votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                 Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, G Chrystie, L M N Morales

TOTAL: 4

Against:                                   Cllrs S Ashall, I Eastwood, N Martin, M Whitehand

TOTAL: 4

Present not voting:                  Cllr G Cundy (Chairman)

TOTAL: 1

The application was therefore not approved.

Peter Bryant, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, reminded the Committee of a similar application recently considered and on which he had reported on earlier under the Appeal Decisions.  The particular application was subject to judicial review at the High Court.  Peter Bryant acknowledged that Members had different views on applications, however he informed Members that in order to function as a Committee, decisions would need to be determined at Planning Committee meetings.

Councillor Eastwood proposed and Councillor Whitehand seconded a motion to refuse the application.  In accordance with standing Order 22.2 the votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                 Cllrs S Ashall, G Cundy, I Eastwood, N Martin, M Whitehand

TOTAL: 5

Against:                                   Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, G Chrystie

TOTAL: 3

Present and not voting:           Cllr L M N Morales

TOTAL 1

The application was therefore refused for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report.

RESOLVED

That that planning permission be refused.