Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional Approval.

Proposal: Householder application for proposed erection single storey front extension, first floor front and side extensions, conversion of existing garage to provide habitable accommodation and internal alterations.

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Hira.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application as set out in agenda pages 167 to 180.

Richard Kind, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the current design of the proposed 1^st floor extension would make the property overly dominant when compared with its neighbouring dwelling. He added that the extension would be build right up to the boundary line of the property. Richard stated that there would be a loss of soft landscaping due the creating of a new car parking space at the front of the proposed extension. Richard stated that the quantity and quality of the daylight received by his property would be reduced as a result of the proposed development. Richard explained that due to the proposed extensions’ 75^o angle to his property this would cause an approximate 50% light loss compared with the current situation. Richard stated that the front extension was out of keeping and not of a similar design with other properties on the estate. Richard added that there were 2 windows included in the proposed extension and that these would create a loss of privacy for his property. Richard felt that the proposed extension would be dominant compared to its’ host dwelling.

Pauljit Hira, applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that he, his wife and 3 children resided in the property. He added that his family had grown from 3 persons to 5 over the years and the family needed to maximise the space potential from their home. Pauljit described how he and his family liked the neighbourhood and felt safe there, stating that it was a great community and Borough to live in. Pauljit felt that the application was in current keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood.

Tim Holton noted key points raised by Mr Kind, which included the dominant nature of the extension (compared to its host and neighbouring dwelling), the reduction of soft landscaping, the loss of daylight to the neighbouring property and the proposed side windows. Stefan Fludger, Case Officer, responded to the raised points. He stated that there was a varied and mixed design on the street and therefore the front extension would not be out of keeping with the local scene. He stated that there would be a loss of soft landscaping as a consequence of creating a new parking space, but clarified that this would not be a significant change to the character of the area. Stefan stated that as the side rooms of the neighbouring dwelling were not habitable (bar 1 side room which had another source of natural light through arches in the conservatory) and the natural light to these rooms were already heavily impacted by the neighbouring property, the impact of the loss of light as a result of the proposed extension was not significant. Stefan clarified the proposed 1^st floor en suite window was restricted to being obscured glass. Stefan stated that the only planning concern was with regards to the habitable room of the neighbouring property which had another natural light source.

Chris Bowring stated that having reviewed the photographs of the property and listening to the evidence presented, he was of the view that the impact on the neighbouring property was minimal when considering the impact of the current dwelling.

A number of Members commented that they felt a site visit to the property would have been very useful to make a better judgement on all issues raised by the objector. These Members felt that that they did not have enough information to make a judgement on the application at the meeting.

Wayne Smith proposed that the application be deferred and a site visit organised to assess the impact on the street scene and the impact on neighbouring boundaries that the proposed development would have. This was seconded by Malcolm Richards and upon being put to a vote it was:

RESOLVED: That application 182236 be deferred and a site visit organised to assess the impact on the street scene and the impact on neighbouring boundaries that the proposed development would have.