Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed erection of a single storey front extension to form porch (part retrospective).

Applicant: Mr Tarun Singh

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 31 to 46.

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

Carol Jewell, Woodley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Carol stated that Woodley Town Council opposed the design of the porch as the pillars were out of keeping with the character of the street scene and out of keeping with neighbouring properties. Carol added that page 55 of the Borough Design Guide stated that alterations and extensions to properties should be well designed, respond positively to the original building, contribute positively to the local character, and relate well to neighbouring properties whilst maintaining or enhancing the existing street scene and local character. Carol added that page 57 of the Borough Design Guide stated that the overriding consideration should be the impact on the street scene and local character. Carol stated that the residential design checklist asked whether proposals contributed positively and appropriately towards the local character and whether they related well to their context. Carol stated that South Lake was a designated site of urban landscape value which classified it as an important and ecological resource which was well used for informal recreational activities. Carol added that the applicant’s property was adjacent to the lake footpath, and in view of that particular care should be taken with regards to this application.

ShashikanthHallibyl, architect, spoke in support of the application. Shashikanth stated that the applicant wanted to emphasise the entrance to the dwelling, which was missing in the existing property. Shashikanth added that the proposal crossed more than four square meters, but under six square meters, and was outside of the conservation area. Shashikanth added that there were a considerable amount of variations of porches and property frontages within the area, and they had taken a variety of photos and had settled on the current design.

Tarun Singh, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Tarun stated that the porch and the pillars were a very small impact on the overall size of the property, as the property was quite wide. Tarun added that the property was outside of the conservation area, but instead next to it.

Jenny Cheng, Ward Member, submitted a statement in objection to the application, and in her absence this was read out by Angus Ross. Jenny stated that Sycamore Close had a different character dependent on which section you were looking at, with clusters of houses having markedly differing characters. Jenny added that any Grecian style pillars that could be found on Hazel Drive were a long way from what was visible within Sycamore Close. Jenny stated that there were no porches on the applicant’s side of the road, and as such the proposed porch would be forward of the building line. Jenny added that part of the application was retrospective, and the white pillars which would support the proposed porch were already in place and stood out vividly against the landscape of the four houses of number 5, 6, 7, and 8 which were all brown and black with no porches. Jenny was of the opinion that the white pillars would be an eyesore for residents within this section of Sycamore Close, as well as for visitors and pedestrians walking around South Lake. Jenny asked that the Committee refuse this application.

Stephen Conway commented that Carol Jewell was very knowledgeable and had pointed out some tensions between the Borough Design Guide and the proposals. Stephen stated that the Committee would have to identify demonstrable harm in order to refuse this application, and he had not heard such evidence as of yet.

Pauline Jorgensen queried whether the picture on agenda page 45 depicted the final design. Mark Croucher, case officer, stated that the picture on agenda page 45 was illustrative, and the final design would be in line with the approved plans should the Committee approve the application.

RESOLVED That application number 212963 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 31 to 32.