Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions.

WARD: Town

NOTED

1.  The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, including:

a.  Clarification of the proposals.

b.  The property would originally have comprised a single family dwelling and therefore the removal of the dental surgery and its conversion back to living accommodation linked to the existing family house was considered acceptable.

c.  The proposed ground floor extensions were limited in extent and effectively provided for the creation of a single flank wall along the line of the outermost extent of the existing bay window.

d.  The first floor extension did not extend the property any deeper into the rear garden but extended the property sideways effectively squaring it off.

e.  It was recognised that the property would increase in size when viewed from neighbouring properties. However, given the separation distance between the application property and the neighbouring properties to the rear (approx. 16m) it was not considered that the development would result in either a loss of light or outlook.

f.  A new window was proposed to the rear elevation of the first floor extension, to provide natural light to a new bedroom to be created within the extension. However, this bedroom would have a further window in the flank elevation facing the open space to the south and therefore it was considered reasonable to require that the window to the rear elevation was fixed and obscure glazed to a height of 1.7m above the floor level and a condition to this effect was recommended. It was considered with this condition the privacy of adjoining residents would not be compromised.

2.  The deputation of Mr Bowring, neighbouring resident, including the following points:

a.  He understood the new owner’s desire to develop the property and wanted to be co-operative, but would like to register his concerns about the bulking and massing and the building line.

b.  He contested the officers’ description of the extension as ‘modest’.

c.  The building line was at an angle to his property, which meant the development would extend towards him.

d.  There was a proposal to extend no.3 (application ref TP/02/0410) which was rejected on grounds of design and size and visually intrusive in the conservation area. That proposal was of a smaller size than this one.

e.  This proposal would cause serious loss of amenity to Beauchamp Lodge and River View.

3.  The response of Mr Ken Dufton, the applicant, including the following points:

a.  Nothing being proposed was controversial. He wished to bring this property, which had been modified over a number of years, back into reasonable use, in a way that would enhance the appearance of the area.

b.  The footprint of the building would not be extended to any great extent; the main impact was on the first floor..

c.  New windows would be installed, but into an elevation which already had windows, and he accepted the condition regarding obscured glazing.

4.  Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers, including:

a.  The application was presented to Planning Committee both because it was submitted by the Council’s Plan Drawing Service, and because officers were aware of the local interest.

b.  Confirmation of separation distances, and of the current and proposed plan and garden access, and that the proposals were policy compliant.

5.  The unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.