Issue - meetings

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed first storey extension and raising of the roof to create a habitable first floor, single storey rear extension and changes to fenestration.

Applicant: Mr S Sidhu

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 47 to 76.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Tim Marsh, ACER residents’ association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim stated that ACER had reviewed over 400 planning applications in Whitegates since 2016, including a variety of bungalows, however no applications to convert a bungalow in the middle of a row of bungalows to a two-storey house had been considered until now. Tim added that such a development would be out of keeping and out of character. Tim felt that the bungalow development to number 42 was acceptable, with the overall height only being increased by 0.75m, whereas the proposal for number 25 would add an entire additional storey and had received 9 objections. Tim requested that the application be refused as the conversion of the bungalow to a two-storey property was out of keeping with the character of the area and was not in keeping with the row of bungalows in which it resided, and the allocated parking for a 5-bedroom tenanted property was inadequate.

Peter Dorward, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Peter stated that policy CP3 was the key policy regarding planning permission, and proposals must meet key criteria and requirements including appropriate scale of activity, mass, layout, built form, height, materials and character of the area whilst being of no detriment to the amenities of adjoining land users and their quality of life, whilst integrating with the surrounding existing dwellings. Peter added that number 25 was in a row of 5 houses with very similar design, with the same frontage and same height, creating a section of the road with its own unique character. Peter felt that the proposed changes demonstrated a very significant change, with the proposed building being much taller than existing dwellings. Peter stated that other properties including his own had been sympathetically increased in size, but had remained in keeping, met planning requirements, whilst retaining their existing height. Peter added that his dining room would see a loss of light from the proposed dwelling, whilst number 23 would also experience this same issue. Peter felt that the application should be refused as it did not meet the requirements set out within CP3, and presented a number of signatures from objectors on Palmerstone Road.

Andy Croy, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Andy felt that the mass, scale and layout of the proposal would detract seriously from the existing street scene. Andy added that this section of the road was a section of bungalows, and a two-storey home in the middle of this section would detract from the character of the area. Andy stated that other properties had undergone sympathetic redevelopment, utilising space towards the rear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36