Agenda item

Erection of Sun Room to Front.

Consideration was given to the report submitted in relation to the above application, a copy of which had been circulated.

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site. It was noted that a site visit had taken place that day.

J Copeland, applicant addressed the Committee and commenced by explaining that since the images displayed had been produced, neighbouring properties had been extended, one of which had doubled in size. Therefore he considered that his application for a sun room would not have any impact on the street scene.

At the time he had submitted the planning application, he had referred to the proposed development as a sun room but unfortunately his medical health was deteriorating and therefore the room would be of vital importance to him as a bedroom.

He was prepared to reduce projection from the existing elevation to 2.5m, would provide an escape in case of fire and install less glazing if required. However the suggestion that he be asked to consider a side extension was not feasible. A footpath would be required and this would reduce the size of the internal space, which would make it impossible for him to manoeuvre his wheelchair around.

A Member stated that whilst she sympathised with the applicant’s personal circumstances, the extensions referred to were in character with the remaining properties in the street.

A further Member reiterated concerns in relation to the health of the applicant but added that if approved this development would set a precedent for other applications and would bring about a decline in the appearance of the village. He had witnessed this in his own ward and referred to Grange Villa which had been cited as an example of a village where the appearance of terraced houses had been spoilt by indiscriminate development.

With regard to the site visit, a Member commented that having viewed the property on site, the proportions of the extension were vast and he felt that it would be detrimental to the area. He suggested that other options should be discussed which would best suit the applicant’s needs.

The local Member considered that the application should be approved as submitted to assist the needs of the applicant who had lived there for 50 years. In his opinion the proposals were not detrimental to the area.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

At this point Councillor Richardson left the meeting.