Alterations to existing dwelling together with ground floor rear extension and side porch.
Ms Stevens presented the report to the Committee and drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included additional representations.
Ms Stevens explained to the Committee that much of what was proposed within the application was subject to Permitted Development including the porch element to the side of the building. Ms Stevens informed the Committee that this was the fall-back position and as a material consideration carried a significant amount of weight. She explained the reason for the planning application being submitted was because when combined both the side and rear extension were greater than the width of the house.
Ms Stevens explained that the roof lights identified in her report were included as part of a permitted development on an existing lost conversion and did not form part of the application being considered by the Committee.
Ms Stevens informed the Committee that a tree survey had been submitted as part of the application. A condition for the translocation of two trees was already included within the proposed report; however, Ms Stevens confirmed that the applicant has indicated that they would be happy for a condition on the planting scheme to be included if the Committee felt that was necessary.
The Committee received the following speakers;
Mrs M Klinger – Objector (statement read by Mrs Baker)
Mr J Halliday – Objector (statement read by Mrs Baker)
Mr W Mclaren-Clark – Objector (statement read by Mrs Baker)
Mrs E Rogerson - Applicant
Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;
Ms Stevens confirmed that the proposed extension would be built right up to the site boundary as shown on the plans. On the matter of construction and maintenance Ms Stevens explained that these were separate matters that the applicant would need to resolve should permission be given and was not a matter for the Committee to consider.
On the matter of the council’s guidance note for alterations to dwellings and extensions; Ms Steven’s confirmed that the proposal complied with the council’s design statement.
On the matter of permitted development, Mr Whitty explained that it was a technicality that much of the scheme required permission from the Local Planning Authority, due to the side extension adjoining another extension, that the application had been submitted. If permission is not granted then the side extension could be constructed through permitted development, and with prior approval the majority of the rear extension could also be constructed.
On the matter of the proposed obscure glass glazing and roof lights, Mr Whitty informed the Committee that because the glass glazing was at ground floor level it did not require planning consent, nor was it required to be obscured.
On the matter of roof lights, Mr Whitty confirmed that the roof lights did not form part of the application.
On the matter of permitted development within a Conservation Area; Mr Whitty confirmed that if the site was located within a Conservation Area it would not be subject to the same permitted development rights.
Cllr Plowman proposed that the Planning Committee defer their decision, until after the Planning Committee have visited the site. This was seconded by Cllr Bowden.
Following a vote Members’ agreed to Defer the report recommendation.
Recommendation to defer until a site visit by the Planning Committee has been completed.
*Members took a five minute break