Agenda item

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval

Proposal:  proposed erection of single storey front extension to dwelling and covered porch

Applicant: Mr Fred Warren

The Committee originally heard this application on 13 September 2017, whereupon it was proposed that it be deferred until Members had been able to carry out a site visit.  The Committee received and reviewed an addendum to the report about this application set out in Agenda pages 11 to 34.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included a proposed amendment to paragraph 2 to whit that it is Condition 3 that is amended.

Members had visited the site on 6 October 2017.

Mrs Dance, resident, spoke against the application, stating that she and her family had lived in the neighbouring property for 55 years, and that the proposed development would spoil their outlook.  The frontage of the properties was distinctive and this should be preserved as part of the history of the area.

Anthony Richardson, agent, spoke in favour of the application, suggesting that the purpose of the application was to provide a new entrance and circulation space, to minimise heat loss and to make the property more efficient and more modern.  The extension was to the north and would therefore have less impact on light.  He shared a time-lapse film that indicated sun movements around the property.  The extension extended forward by 1.2m.  The extension wall was approximately 1m away from the window.  It was fundamental to the core brief to maintain the character of the cottage.  The same materials or equivalents would be used.  This would include soft clay brick tiles and patterns in blue brick.  Material samples were to be provided as part of the conditions.  The Conservation Officer had advised that the proposed extension would not lead to any loss of character.  Flush fitting windows would be fitted as advised. 

The Chair read a statement from David Lee, Ward Member, indicating that the cottages created their own unique contextual setting.   He suggested that the building line for the property should be set in relation to the other cottages and not the terraced properties that had been built much later.  He also stated that the loss of light would have a serious impact on the neighbouring property because of the small size of the windows.

In answer to Member queries regarding light, the Case Officer stated that the addendum report contained a correction to the calculations and that the 45^o point had not been breached.  The Lead Officer, Operational Development Management, went on to explain that the assessment of light followed a two-stage process.  If the proposed development did not breach the 45^o rule, which was the first stage, the second stage was not required.  The calculation point was the middle point of the roofline.

Members discussed the application at length.  They acknowledged the visual impact of the proposed extension on the current properties and the fact that the neighbouring property had small windows and there would be a loss of light.  Guidance was just that and should be used in relation to the circumstances at hand.  However, the application met planning requirements and nationally used standards for assessing loss of light.

Resolved:  That Application no 172013 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 11 to 34 and the proposed amendment as laid out in the Members’ Update.