Agenda item

Two storey side extension with loft conversion to include a dormer window (Re-submission of DM/21/01379/FPA)

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer which sought approval of a two-storey side extension with loft conversion to include a dormer window (Resubmission of DM/21/01379/FPA) (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included a site plan, site photographs and the existing and proposed layout. Members had visited the site the previous day.

The Committee Services Officer then read a statement provided by local Member, Councillor Craig Martin as follows:

“Thank you as a committee and planning officers for taking the time to consider this application. I'm sorry I am unable to attend due to work commitments and provide representations in person after calling this in. To allow for further debate and discussion on the design of this extension, in particular the shape of the roof.

Throughout the whole process and previous applications, I’ve been in communication with residents that have objections, the applicant, and planning officers. To ensure everyone is informed and their voices are heard. It has been requested that I take this opportunity to raise two points.

There have been wild rumours circulating around the community around the potential of this becoming 'housing of multiple occupancy' (HMO). Despite the applicant confirming they have no intention of using the property for such a thing. If the committee is minded to accept this application, I request that you amend this application, if possible. To put a condition on the application so that its use in the future explicitly cannot be used as a HMO. So that residents are given absolute certainty on this matter.

Secondly, throughout this process I've been having numerous conversations with senior planning officers on the potential options. Using the loft space for another room was noted to be an acceptable amendment to the plans in principle. This information was passed onto the applicant. Along with words of caution about working outside the planning system.

I ask all members of the committee to listen carefully to all arguments put forward by residents and the applicant. Come to a decision so that this matter can come to a conclusion”.

The Chair then asked the Principal planning officer to read a statement which had been provided by Mrs Johnson, local resident who wished to out forward his objections, but was unable to attend the meeting for health reasons.

“I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the comment made by the Highways Authority on the proposed development at 21 Rickleton Avenue, Chester le Street :-

“If the development increases the number of bedrooms to 5 then the number of parking provisions would need to be addressed “

I understand that the loft conversion has resulted in the number of bedrooms now being 5.

I have commented that the site has now been developed to an extent that there is only parking space for one car within the site.  There is only a single garage and no parking space for visitors’ cars.

The property occupies a corner site where there is already a problem with car parking on the road and footpaths beside the junction of Rickleton Avenue and Camperdown Avenue which leads to the Blind Lane Junction.  I have requested double yellow lines be considered.

I wish to enquire whether the Highways Authority’s comment has been addressed and what is the outcome? and does it solve this problem situation being created by this proposed development?

In my opinion there is one very important reason why this development has proved to be so problematic as to be rejected by both planners and the Community and yet has been given little mention in the Report. 

The owner of the property does not intend to live in it himself with his family and therefor has shown little interest in the appearance of the building and little regard for the plan he submitted for approval.  He has built for the purpose of furthering his business interests and he is in the business of lettings and room rental, his speciality being HMOs for the euphemistically called ‘vulnerable adults’.

This business does not belong in Rickleton Avenue.  There is strong opposition to it in principle but the Report dismissively refers to “a HMO would require planning permission in its own right”. To me that sounds like storing it for the future.

The aesthetic appearance of the building work at No 21 has been given priority in the Report on this development proposal and I agree the Gable wall is hideous with its almost comical plumbing feature and the roof colour and construction is a real ‘sore thumb’ of a feature and overall is unacceptable.  

But the real and present danger is that one individual would be allowed to further their business interests against the wider public interest and protest of the Community.   This is a residential area where the Community Charges are high and the opposition to this development proposal is strong and adamant.  Such a business development belongs in the business centre of Chester le Street.  Please factor this into the discussion at the Committee Meeting today”.

The Chair then welcomed Mr Kumar, Applicant who was in attendance to speak in support of the application.

Mr Kumar explained that he was unsure how he found himself in this situation following advice sought from his local Councillor over the lockdown period. He advised that at that time it was suggested that he would be able to proceed with the extension and apply for permission retrospectively. He added that he truly apologised that he had got this wrong and that he did not set out to do any work without the requisite permissions.

He went on to explain that he had owned the property for 17 years and only ever rented to families. Regarding comments made relating to HMOs he advised that this is something he would nor want or seek to do at this property, noting that there was no place for a HMO in this area. He went on to explain that he too lived in this area and wanted only to enhance it.

Regarding comparison drawn against number 19, he explained that even if the roof was removed and hip roof replaced, there would still be significant differences to that property.

The Principal Planning Officer added at this point for clarification that should the applicant wish to use this property as an HMO in the future, a material change in use form C4 dwelling would occur and would require permission. Therefore, on that basis prohibiting use as an HMO would not meet the test for a planning condition.

Councillor Watson commented that retrospective planning permission would never be recommended nor the course of action taken by the applicant. He therefore felt the officers had the recommendation right and the reasons for refusal were quite clear.

Councillor Bainbridge asked whether the roof had been hipped when the property was bought. In response the applicant advised that it had been hipped, however the extension had allowed him to incorporate another smaller room.

Councillor Quinn added that he had additional concerns regarding this application given that a lot of the work undertaken did not match plans, including the addition of a gable end window and soil pipe to name a few. On that basis he too felt the recommendation of refusal was correct.

Councillor Marshall added that he was inclined to agree with comments made, noting that it was alarming that a local member had passed on this advice to a resident and added his sympathy if this is indeed what had happened. Therefore, he agreed that given the anomalies with the application and work carried out he felt the committee had no choice on this one.

The Officer recommendation for refusal was moved by Councillor Watson and seconded by Councillor Quinn and following a vote being taken it was:

Resolved:

That the application be refusedon the grounds thatthe proposal, including the gable roof, results in an overly dominant, unbalanced and visually intrusive addition to the existing dwelling in a prominent residential area. The proposal causes harm to the character and appearance of the area and is not sympathetic to the existing building. The proposal is contrary to Policy 29 and 31 of the County Durham Plan; the Council’s Residential Amenity Standards Supplementary Document and Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.