Agenda item

The application was for a proposed single storey front extension including two roof lights, a two storey extension to the western side elevation following demolition of the existing garage, change to main roof form, six roof lights to main front roof slope, two rear dormers and fenestration alterations (this application is a resubmission of 19/0701 to allow for alterations to the height of the building and the front gables, alterations to the dormers and fenestration, and the installation of fixed plant for heating and cooling units) - retrospective.

The application would have normally been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation. However, it had been reported to the Planning Applications Committee by Councillor Edward Hawkins on the grounds of residents' concerns over size and bulk, and concerns over the inappropriateness of the heating and cooling units and their potential impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of 3 Middle Close.

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

“UPDATE 

Representations

A further five representations have been received from four addresses. These objection comments have been summarised below:

-       Overdevelopment of site

-       Built without permission or building regulations/retrospective application

-       Overlooking/loss of privacy

-       Noise and emissions pollution from heating and cooling units

-       Removal of trees

-       Concreting rear garden

-       Removal of earth and erection of retaining wall

-       Non-porous driveway, resulting in drainage issues of run-off on to 3 Middle Close

-       Not in keeping with wider character of the estate

-       Noise and disruption from the building works, blocking of the roads, workers pouring cement down the rain drains, builders’ rubble in the front garden, flood lit rear garden, the complete disregard to anyone and everyone and the general attitude of the property owner

-       Negative impact on outlook

-       Disagreement that the block plan and orientation between number 1 and number 3 is correct

-       Heating and cooling units are industrial looking and out of keeping for the character of the area

-       Disagreement with the accuracy of the noise survey

Conditions

Condition 1 amended (change in italics):

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the new acoustic enclosure to the three heating and cooling units to the western side elevation of 1 Middle Close will be enclosed in a new acoustic casing with Caice 150mm Acoustic Louvered section as per design by acoustic specialist, set out in the approved noise impact assessment (Nova Acoustics, dated 1st December 2021) and annotated in the approved plans, and thereafter the acoustic casing shall be retained and maintained.

Reason: To prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions and in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and to protect the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.”

As the application had triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme, Mr Gordon Naisby and Mr Stephen Craig spoke in objection to the application. Mr Sam Peacock spoke on behalf of the applicant in favour of the application.

Committee members had various, notable concerns in respect of the proposal. It was felt by the Committee that the proposed heating and cooling units would be overbearing and have an adverse impact on both the residential and visual amenities enjoyed by 3 Middle Close. It was also noted that the units would be cluttered and industrial in a residential area. Furthermore, it was opined that the increased height of the front gables would appear as unsubservient to the existing dwelling; and when combined with the existing extensions resulted in a building which was prominent, incongruous and out of keeping in relation to the existing streetscene.

As there was no proposer and seconder for the officer’s recommendation the recommendation to grant the application fell.

An alternative recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons outlined above was proposed by Councillor Edward Hawkins, seconded by Councillor Victoria Wheeler and put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that

                     I.        application 20/0514 be refused for the following reasons:

                                     i.        impact on residential amenity

                                    ii.        negative impact on visual amenities

                                  iii.        out of keeping with the existing streetscene; and

                    II.        the final wording of the reasons for refusal be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

                      i.        Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that two Committee Site Visits had taken place in respect of the application and the Committee received various pieces of correspondence from neighbours;

                    ii.        Councillor Graham Tapper had received correspondence and had engaged with neighbours in respect of the application, but came into the meeting with an open mind; and;

                   iii.        Councillor Victoria Wheeler declared that she had received direct email correspondence in respect of the proposal.

Note 2

In line with Part 5 Section D of the Council’s Constitution, as the application had previously been deferred by the Planning Applications Committee in order to conduct a Member Site Visit, only those members who attended the deferred-for Site Visit were able to vote on the application.

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the alternative proposal to refuse the application:

Councillors Graham Alleway, Peter Barnett, Mark Gordon, Edward Hawkins, David Lewis,Robin Perry, Darryl Ratiram, Morgan Rise, Graham Tapper, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.