Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

PROPOSAL

Proposed creation of basement level with front lightwell, single storey wraparound rear extension with internal courtyard and rear patio, loft conversion with rear dormer and 1 front rooflight, replacement of ground and first floor front windows, new front boundary treatment and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The Head of Planning being delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

(2)      The Head of Planning being delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

Damian Manhertz, Team Leader, South Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application sought planning permission of an existing two storey terraced property within the Queens Park Conservation Area to create a basement that would cover the entire width of the building and project 3 m beyond the existing outrigger, a single storey wraparound extension which infills the lightwell also creating an internal courtyard and projecting 3m beyond the rear of the outrigger and a rear dormer, less than two thirds of the width of the dwelling was proposed on the rear roofslope.

It was noted that the application had been referred for consideration by the Planning Committee as a result of three Ward Councillors raising objections and requesting that the application was determined by the Committee.

The Chair thanked Damian Manhertz for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this stage, the Chair invited Councillor Crabb (Ward Councillor) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. Ahead of addressing his concerns with the Committee, Councillor Crabb clarified that as well as being the Ward Councillor, he lived locally to the application site, however, would not be personally affected by the development, therefore his comments were representative of residents, not his personal position. The following key points were highlighted:

·                All three Queens Park Ward Councillors had supported the request for the application to be called in for determination by the Planning Committee as it was felt that if approved it would have a detrimental effect on the local area as well as setting a precedent for future planning applications with these concerns supported by a large number of residents.

·                It was felt the plans were in conflict with the Queens Park Area Design Guide that stated wrap around extensions should not be constructed and side infills should not extend beyond the length of the outrigger.

·                It was not accepted that the application should be supported purely on the basis that appeals had been successful with similar local applications.

·                It was felt the Committee report was inaccurate in its suggestion that gardens in Queens Park were large, given the minimal size of the applicant’s garden, it was felt that the proposed L shaped extension would have a greater detrimental impact as it would extend a quarter of a way in to the garden. This was felt to be out of proportion and harmful to the neighbouring rear property.

·                The type of extension proposed would create additional noise that would be amplified to the neighbouring properties as well as creating excessive light spill.

·                If the application was approved, Councillor Crabb urged the Committee to apply stringent conditions to mitigate the impact of noise and light pollution to neighbouring residents.

The Chair thanked Councillor Crabb for addressing the Committee and queried why it was felt that the type of extension applied for would create excessive light and noise pollution as opposed to a single rear extension. Councillor Crabb clarified that the size and shape of the proposed extension would amplify acoustics to neighbouring properties and excess light spill would be created from the decreased distance between the property and its neighbours to the rear. It was felt the application, if approved, could set a precedent for further applications of this nature, which would have permanent detrimental implications in terms of overdevelopment in Queens Park.

As there were no further questions for Councillor Crabb, the Chair offered Committee Members the opportunity to ask officers any remaining questions they had in relation to the application. The Committee had queries in relation to previous appeals, the potential precedent of overdevelopment and conditions for light and noise pollution, with the following responses provided:

·                Officers advised that historically similar applications had been refused on the basis of the impact on the appearance and character of the building and conservation area, however following a series of successful appeals a decision had been taken to consider previous appeals as a material consideration for future applications. Consequently, a number of extensions of a similar design had been approved in the Queens Park area. It was clarified that outside of conservation areas these types of applications would be routinely approved.

·                Following a Committee query regarding the precedent of overdevelopment if the application was approved, it was clarified that as a number of similar applications had been approved locally approval of the application would not set a precedent as the policy in relation to these types of developments was already established within the borough, with decisions for approval being considered on each applications’ merits.

·                Officers advised that it would not be possible to condition light and noise limits on a residential scheme, however if these issues became apparent, residents could report concerns to the Environmental Health Team to investigate.

As there were no further questions from members and having established that all members had followed the discissions, the Chair asked members to vote on the recommendations.

DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report

(Voting on the item was recommendation was as follows: For 6 and Against 1)