Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Al Neal declared a prejudicial interest regarding this application and left the room for its duration.

Proposal: (Part-retrospective) Householder application for the proposed insertion of a dormer window into the existing loft conversion and roof alterations.

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Khangura

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 115 to 144.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included clarification regarding the inclusion of the statement, “dormer windows should generally be positioned within the main roof…”, within the Borough Design Guide.

Heather Paxton, agent, spoke in support of the application. Heather stated that planning permission was received for this site in October 2020 for the proposed alterations and extensions, including the conversion of the loft with two Velux windows in the front and rear roof slopes. Heather added that the applicant believed that the further addition of a dormer window during the construction phase would be covered under permitted development, and as such went ahead with its construction. During the construction process, a number of complaints had been raised resulting in enforcement cases which had all been dealt with and addressed in a timely manner. Heather stated that the applicant had been fully compliant throughout this process, however these issues had drawn out the construction time by approximately 6 months. A retrospective planning application was submitted for the dormer and was subsequently refused due to its design. Heather stated that this application sought to rectify the dormer design and allow it to conform with local planning policy and the Borough Design Guide. Heather commented that there was an error in the construction of the roof to the new two-storey side extension, which was now proposed to be reconstructed to further obscure the view of the dormer to make it more subservient to the existing dwelling. Heather was of the opinion that there had been general animosity towards the applicant throughout the construction process, and asked that the application be considered based on the information provided rather than how the construction had previously taken place.

Mike Smith, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Mike stated that the application did not comply with policies CP1 or CP3 of the Core Strategy, whilst it did not meet R23 of the Borough Design Guide or the design guidance. Mike added that the dormer was unlawfully built, and this was the third attempt to regularise it following enforcement action. Mike stated that the plot was highly prominent and elevated, and the dormer was clearly visible from 120m down the adjacent road. Mike noted that the approved roof lights were not installed as per the approved plans to the rear of the property, and were instead installed on the street facing elevation. Mike stated that it was incorrectly stated that the application sought to reinstate the taller hipped roof form of the side extension, as this was never built properly in the first instance. Mike added that the 6.5m width of the dormer was proposed to be modified on only one side by between 150mm and 200mm, with nothing else proposed to reduce the scale of the dormer. Mike stated that twenty-percent of the garden belonging to the property to the rear was now visible, which represented a clear loss of amenity. Mike was of the opinion that moving one wall between 150mm to 200mm would not make it subservient to the original dwelling, and felt that the previous refusal reasons still applied, which stated that the contrived design, flat roof and elevated prominent corner position was out of keeping with the host dwelling.

Norman Jorgensen, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Norman stated that the amended proposal was still out of character with the surrounding area, and would be a very dominant structure within the street scene. Norman felt that the proposed changes were very minor and that the original reasons for refusal should still apply. Norman added that the development overlooked a large number of properties whilst being overbearing, and was of the opinion that this was not the type of development that should be granted approval.

Andrew Mickleburgh stated that he shared many concerns raised by local Ward Members, however most of the works relating to this application had been granted approval through previous applications and could not be considered. Andrew stated that if this application was approved then the applicant would be compelled to implement the approved scheme which would hopefully draw this process to an end. Andrew commented that he strongly disapproved with the approach taken with this application, and hoped that the applicant would appreciate that the correct procedure needed to be followed in the first instance.

John Kaiser was of the opinion that the national planning rules were wrong as officers were obliged to engage with applicants within enforcement processes to seek remediation via the submission of a planning application, leaving Planning Committee’s with no choice but to approve such applications where the scheme was recommended for approval.

David Cornish sought clarity that the only amendment that would now make the scheme acceptable was the movement of a wall of the dormer by 200mm. Kieran Neumann, case officer, stated that whilst this change constituted a very small reduction in the width of the dormer it achieved compliance with the Borough Design Guide.

Wayne Smith queried if a certificate of lawfulness would be granted if it was applied for now. Kieran Neumann clarified that the side extension was constructed first, and roof space exceeded 50m³ when combined with the dormer which was why it was refused, and as such a certificate of lawfulness would not be granted if applied for now.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey.

RESOLVED That application number 222963 be approved, subject to conditions and informative as set out in agenda page 122.