Agenda item

Erection of porch to front and two storey rear extension.

The Planning Team Leader (North)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 Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site when the application had been considered previously at Committee and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the erection of porch to front and two storey rear extension and was recommended for refusal.

The Planning Team Leader (North) noted the application had been considered previously in July by Committee, when Members had visited the site, and there was a refusal recommendation put to the Committee at that time.  Members recalled that they decided to defer the application to allow the opportunity to have a revised design to be submitted for consideration, with that proposal now being put to Members.

It was explained that the porch was the same as the previous application, with Officers not having any issues with this element of the design previously, or at this time.  It was added that the rear elevation was the same, with the main change being the reduction of the depth of the proposed development from 2.7m to 1.5m which represented a significant change which aligned with the 45 degree code.  It was noted that there were no objections to this application in its revised form.

The Planning Team Leader (North) noted, however, that there were still some concerns in terms of the bulk and scale of the rear extension, and also in terms of the previous refusal and comments from the Planning Inspectorate in 2016 and therefore the recommendation was for refusal.  Members were reminded that they may wish to take into account personal grounds as set out by the applicant and that the decision was for the Committee.

The Chairman asked the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor A Bainbridge asked if the applicants had received assistance and direction from the Council’s Planning Department in terms of producing a more acceptable scheme.  The Planning Team Leader (North) noted that Officers had visited the site and had offered advice to the give the applicants the best possible outcome.  It was however noted that reducing the width of the extension would have resulted in an unusable space that did not meet the needs of the applicant.  That was why the width of the extension had not been altered.  Councillor A Bainbridge asked if there were no other houses in the vicinity with such double extensions, adding he believed there were several in the next street. 

The Planning Team Leader (North) noted there were such extension, however, the recommendation was based upon the application as submitted, together with the Planning Inspectorate’s determination as previously mentioned.

Councillor A Shield noted mention of “effect on the street scene” and asked for further explanation noting that at some time in the past a development of this type nearby must have been the first and asked why it was refused by the Planning Inspectorate, for not being in keeping with the area.  The Planning Team Leader (North) noted that the Planning Inspectorate was primarily concerned about the impact of the development upon the street scene.

Councillor O Milburn noted that in perspective they were streets of colliery houses, there was nothing that could be done to prevent development at the rear of the properties and added she felt she would move to go against the Officer’s recommendation.  Councillor A Hopgood added that she had visited the site and felt the reduction from 2.7m to 1.5m was significant and on the basis of no objections she would propose that the application be approved.  Councillor L Boyd seconded the proposal.

The Chairman asked for comments from Legal in terms of wishing to go against the Officer’s recommendation and approve the application.

The Solicitor - Planning and Development asked for clarity in terms of the basis of the motion for approval, specifically were Members saying that the design was acceptable in terms of the host property and/or the wider street scene or were the Members saying there was some harm in that regard, however other considerations outweighed that harm.

Councillor A Hopgood noted that there were examples of similar developments nearby, 2 doors down, and did not feel the application would be detrimental.  Councillor A Shield noted that Policy HP11 referred to residential extensions and that it could be said that the Committee felt that this application was in compliance with that policy.  Councillor M McGaun added that given there were similar extensions in the area he could not understand why the application had a recommendation for refusal.  The Chairman noted each application was looked at on its own merits, and this was the one for determination by Committee today.

Councillor O Milburn proposed that the application be approved, noting she felt it did not have an adverse impact in terms of scale, form or factor and was in keeping with policy HP11.

The Planning Team Leader (North) noted that should Members be minded to approve the application that a standard suite of conditions could be imposed, in consultation, in respect of issues such as plans, materials, start times and so on.

Councillor O Milburn moved that the application be approved; she was seconded by Councillor L Boyd.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions being agreed by Officers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee.