Agenda item

Report No: DEV/FH/17/027

Householder Planning Application - (i) Single storey front extension (ii) Two Storey side and rear extension (iii) Single storey rear extension - revised scheme of -DC/15/2282/HH

Householder Planning Application - (i) Single storey front extension (ii) Two Storey side and rear extension (iii) Single storey rear extension - revised scheme of -DC/15/2282/HH

This application was deferred from the Development Control Committee on 7 June 2017 as Members resolved that they were ‘minded to refuse’ planning permission contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval.

The application had been referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

A Member site visit was held on 3 April 2017.  In their motion to refuse the Committee cited the following objections to the scheme:

·         Poor design being out of character in the street scene;

·         Impact on neighbours’ amenity (overlooking); and

·         Overdevelopment of the site.

The Planning Officer reminded Members that in 2016 planning permission was granted under application DC/15/2282/HH.  However, whilst works had been largely completed, several elements had been found not to conform to what was granted permission.

Accordingly, the plans before Members had been amended as part of the retrospective application to better show what works had been completed. 

As requested at the June meeting, the following information was included in the risk assessment report; the scheme granted approval under DC/15/2282/HH, development allowed under Permitted Development and the scheme applied for retrospectively – to enable Members to clearly consider all elements in comparison with each other.

Whilst Officers continued to recommend that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph I1 of Report No DEV/FH/17/027, reasons for refusal had also been drafted in Paragraphs E9 and F4.

Councillor Ruth Bowman continued to raise concerns, specifically with regard to the unauthorised balcony element and the impact this had on neighbours’ amenity.  She asked if it would be possible to approve the scheme but condition that the balcony had to be removed. 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that this would not be possible, the Committee were required to determine the scheme before them without amendment.

Councillor Stephen Edwards moved that the application be refused, for the reasons set out in the report, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Simon Cole.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.   The development is considered to represent overdevelopment of the application site; the extensions do not respect the character, scale and massing of other dwellings in the locality, detrimental to the visual amenities of the wider street scene. This, together with the use of boarding which is not representative of materials used in the locality, results in a development which has an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposals therefore fail to comply with policies DM2 and DM24 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document 2015 and policy CS5 of the Forest Heath Core Strategy 2010; and

2.   The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenity of adjacent residents by virtue of resulting overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring residents caused by the proposed rear balcony. The proposal would therefore conflict with policy DM2 and DM24 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document 2015.