Agenda item

Front canopy, two-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension (part retrospective).

The Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for a front canopy, two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension (part retrospective) and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions as set out in the report. 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the property was semi-detached, in a cul-de-sac and referred to photographs showing the progress made, the applicant having halted works once aware that a retrospective application would be required.  Members noted that the breezeblock wall on the side extension would be rendered, with the finish and colour to be agreed.  The differences between the agreed scheme and the works carried out were explained, including the return along the extension no longer being stepped and a window having been removed from the side wall facing a neighbouring property.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the main differences in terms of the dormer windows and rear elevations were largely cosmetic and there was a difference in terms of the front door canopy.

In terms of representations from internal and statutory consultees there had been no objections raised.  The Committee noted no formal objections had been made, however a number of telephone calls had been received querying the development.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that in terms of the principle of development and impact it was not felt that the changes in terms of the bay window or extension were significant, rather the main issue could be argued as being the scale and design of the door canopy.  It was explained that some staining of the wood used could improve the situation and it was not felt that this was sufficient to warrant a refusal recommendation. 

The Principal Planning Officer concluded that it was felt the application was in accord with saved Local Plan Policies and the NPPF and therefore was recommended for approval.

The Chairman noted there were no registered speakers for this item and asked Members of the Committee for their comments.

Councillor B Moir, a local Member for the area, noted that he had been informed of a level of intimidation and this may have contributed to the lack of formal objections to the application.  He added that, referring to the site visit and the photograph within the Officer’s presentation, it was clear what the style of properties was in the area and that the development was beyond the approved scheme.  Councillor B Moir concluded by noting it was for Members to look at the changes in terms of the extension, canopy and bay window and decide whether to approve the retrospective application, however he asked in terms of such retrospective applications, when one would say "enough is enough".

Councillor P Conway, a local Member for the area, added that he agreed with Councillor B Moir in terms of retrospective applications and that there were three areas that had significantly changed from the approved scheme and for public transparency the application had been requested to be determined at Committee, giving local people the opportunity to make representations.

Councillor G Bleasdale added that she agreed in terms of disliking retrospective applications and added she felt the works as carried out to the door canopy were not in keeping with the area.

Councillor M Davinson noted that he agreed and disagreed with fellow Committee Members in terms of the application.  He noted that the area did not have any overall uniformity, with some bits added on here and there, akin to a child’s Lego set.  He added that while he was never happy with what he might term “retrospective plus” applications, he agreed with the Officer’s assessment in planning terms within the report and while he did not like the design of the canopy, he would move that the application be approved.

Councillor J Lethbridge noted he agreed and that the other houses in the area were variable in type, expressing the likes of those living in those properties.  He added that while on site the design of the “grand portico” had opened his eye, however he did not feel this was sufficient to go against the Officer’s recommendation and therefore he would second that the application be approved.

Councillor M Davinson moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor J Lethbridge.

Upon a vote being taken the motion was lost.

The Chairman asked whether any Members wished to move to the contrary in respect of the application and set out their reasons why.

Councillor B Moir noted that the delegated decision taken to approve the original scheme had been because that scheme had been acceptable, however, there had been changes and the development had been taken further and that the application represented the elements of the extension, portico and bay window all being larger.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development asked whether Members felt there was an issue in terms of residential amenity, or impact upon the character and street scene or both.

Councillor B Moir noted he felt that it was impact upon both, residential amenity and the character and street scene.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development asked whether this was as a result of the canopy only or the extension or both.

Councillor B Moir noted he felt it was both and noted that it was now to verbalise and granulate reasons in terms of the size of the canopy, extension and bay window, the application being contrary to saved Local Plan Policies Q1, Q2 and Q9 in terms of impact upon the character and street scene.

Councillor B Moir moved that the application be refused; he was seconded by Councillor G Bleasdale.

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Due to the scale and design of the scheme it was felt to have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene, which fails to comply with policies Q1, Q2 and Q9 of the City of Durham Local Plan.