Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval

CASE OFFICER: Claire Moore

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed single-storey front extension, single-storey side extension, two-storey side extension and part single-storey part two-storey rear extension plus changes to fenestration and demolition of existing detached garage.

Applicant: Mr Tino Simon

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 63 to 83.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·         Five additional objections from neighbours

·         An additional condition relating to Boundary Treatment

Claire Moore, case officer, advised that there was an additional condition regarding drainage.

Rob Jones, Charvil Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. He told Members that he was disappointed that previous refusal reasons had not been taken into account. He mentioned that the application was in contrary to policy CP3 regarding mass and added that the original house had been completely lost. He referenced a previously rejected application at 11 Old Bath Road that was refused due to form, scale and being harmful to the street scene and questioned the difference between the two applications. He commented on the loss of light that the development would cause for neighbouring properties. He explained that this was an example of people taking advantage of the planning system by using repeated planning applications, he added that residents were losing faith in the planning system.

George Enock, resident, spoke in objection to the application. He told Members that the development was blocking natural light getting into large parts of his house, even on sunny days, he showed through an image of his garden that the two-storey rear extension would block light coming into his house even more. He added that the rear extension broke the 45-degree BRE rule. He explained that the mass and scale of the development was overbearing. He mentioned that the building line of the property would be considerably further back compared to neighbouring properties. He commented on a lack of space for scaffolding at the side of the property. He stated that the development would have five side windows and with the removal of the hedge they would be able to see into his house.

Tino Simon, applicant, spoke in support of the application. He explained that since the house was built, there had never been any enlargement, and this made it unfit for a modern family. He mentioned that previous refusal reasons had been taken into account and that the loss of light had been carefully assessed. He told Members that the proposal increased the separation between number 18 and number 20. He explained that this proposal was only one small element on top of what had already been approved. He said that everything had been done to be in line with the NPPF. He mentioned that the Councillor who listed the application had not visited the site and that there were no material reasons for refusal.

All members of the committee had attended a site visit except Councillors Soane, Cornish and Munro.

Councillor Cornish explained that this was a composite of previous applications and that most of the issues had been covered off by already approved applications. He added that the only issue that the committee was considering was the infill on the front and side of the property.

Councillor Soane questioned whether the only alteration was the front and if there were any changes to the roof. Claire Moore explained that there was a 5cm increase in the height of the roof, which was down from 30cm on the previous proposal.

Councillor Firmager sought clarity on the previously approved applications and whether they would still be applicable if this proposal was approved. Claire Moore responded by saying that this application would not supersede the previous applications and that they would still stand.

Councillor Smith referenced the case officer presentation and particularly the approved roofline and questioned what was already approved. Claire Moore explained that the proposal infilled the two-storey front section and pushed the corner out to the principal building line.

Councillor Smith mentioned comments regarding policy CP3 in terms of the scale of the property compared to neighbouring properties. Claire Moore told Members that the road had no dominating design style and that the proposal would blend in with the local environment. Brian Conlon explained that CP3 did not stifle difference and that Members needed to decide if the difference was harmful.

Councillor Smith sought comment on the BRE guidance regarding loss of light. Claire Moore clarified that there would be a minor impact but not significant. Brian Conlon added that the BRE guidance was not mandatory and was not something to solely base a decision on.

Councillor Mickleburgh said the previous refusal reasons had been addressed and that the key point was whether the side/front extension would be sufficient grounds for refusing the application. He told Members they should make their decision based on planning policy.

Councillor Cornish expressed sympathy for Mr Enock and that there may have been a different discussion if previous applications had been brough to committee, he added that what Members needed to consider was what the extra harm was of this proposal with what had already been approved.

It was proposed by Councillor Cornish and seconded by Councillor Skuse that this application be approved.

RESOLVED: That application 240459 be approved subject to conditions and informatives set out in appendix 1 of the agenda, and the additional condition regarding boundary treatment.