Issue - meetings

PERMISSION

Description of application – First floor rear extension.

Oral representations from visiting Ward Member Councillor Neil Reddin in support of the application were received at the meeting. The application would provide the space required to allow the applicants to work from home, the need for which had increased as a result of the pandemic. The option of a garden office had been considered but would result in the felling of some mature trees and loss of open space. It was noted that the application had been adjusted to reflect the concerns of the neighbours at No. 2. The adjoining neighbours at No. 4, who would be most impacted by the proposed extension, were supportive of the application and a video to that effect had been circulated to Members. Councillor Reddin therefore urged Members to approve the application.

The Assistant Director, Planning reported that a copy of the comments received from the agent, the officer response, and videos and further letter of support for the application had been circulated to Members of the Sub-Committee. Clarification was provided that:

-  section 2.1 of the report should read: ‘The surrounding properties comprise predominantly semi-detached dwellings’;

-  the agent had confirmed that the proposed extension was 3.6 metres deep; and

-  permitted development restricted anything within 2 metres of the boundary, to a maximum of 3 metre high eaves.

Councillor Kathy Bance MBE said that she supported the officer’s reasons for recommending that the proposed first floor rear extension be refused due to its excessive rearward projection and close proximity to the shared boundary which would result in a significant loss of light, outlook and prospect, and moved refusal.

Councillor Charles Joel seconded refusal.

Councillor Suraj Sharma highlighted that the occupiers of the adjoining property at No.4 did not object to the application and had in fact submitted a letter of support. It was noted that concerns had been raised in relation to drainage, but as the extension would house an additional bedroom this was not a reason to refuse the application. It was subjective if the application would result in the lack of amenity and Councillor Sharma moved to grant permission.

Having visited the site, the Chairman did not consider the rearward projection of the proposed first floor extension to be excessive as it would only go as far back as the existing ground floor extension. As the immediate neighbour did not object to the application, and planned to do something similar, the reason given for refusal would no longer stand. It was highlighted that this was a preferred option to felling trees to create a garden office and therefore she seconded permission.

Councillor Kate Boughey said that she felt the proposals were modest, and as the projection was not that great, the impact would be minimal. It was considered that due to the distance between the properties there would not be any impact on No. 2 and she would agree with permission being granted.

Councillor Christine Harris said that she had also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33