Issue - meetings

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a two-storey rear extension, single storey front, side and rear extensions, rear dormer window, front rooflight, replacement windows, external alterations and alterations to external finishes.

Councillor D Roberts, Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application and commented that no public concerns had been raised regarding this application. He commented that it was a thoughtful design that cleverly lessened the impact to the street scene. The new footprint of the property was set to be 89.7sqm, from a previous footprint of 43.5sqm, which was not dissimilar to other extensions in the area; the amenity space would still be 285sqm. Councillor D Roberts said that he thought a subservience would be achieved by the setting back of the property and the use of specific materials. It was of a modern design, but the SPD suggested that modern design could sit next to traditional properties successfully. Councillor D Roberts thought that the application met the requirements of national and local policies, and the careful choice of materials achieved a subservience which minimised the impact on the street scene. He thought it was an imaginative and intelligent design and hoped the Committee would consider approval.

Some Committee Members agreed that they liked the modern design, however, even though the design was good it did not necessarily mean that it fitted within the existing street scene. Some Members thought that the modern view was prominent on the street and was out of keeping with the other extensions.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation.  The votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, J Brown, P Graves and L Morales (Chairman).

                                 TOTAL:  4

Against:                              None.

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllr Spenser.

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be REFUSED.