Minutes:
The application before Members sought planning permission for the demolishing and replacing the existing side garage, utility room, and part of the kitchen to enable the erection of a two storey side extension together with a single storey rear extension. The proposed works also included a new front porch and replacing an existing first floor rear window with double doors together with a metal guard-rail to create a 'Juliette' balcony.
The ground floor area of the proposed side and also part of the proposed rear extension would create an annexe with self-contained facilities including a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen/lounge.
The proposal detailed that the annexe would be occupied by the applicant’s father who required some degree of care and the annexe was not intended to be used as a separate unit which was not ancillary to the main house.
In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant’s agent.
The objector commented that he had lived in his property for twenty years and raised concern on the developments that proposed to build up to his boundary wall. It was stated that this would cause a lack of space to maintain boundary wall and sense of enclosure/tunnelling effect. The objector also stated loss of light in the area there was now inadequate amenity space for residents to use.
In response the applicant’s agent commented that an identical build was been undertaken down the road and that all officer and architectural guidance had been incorporated in the proposal
The Committee noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Van den Hende on the grounds that the development raised concerns in regards to its impact upon neighbouring amenity, bulk and also its impact on the streetscene.
With its agreement Councillor Van den Hende addressed the Committee and reiterated her reasons for the call-in.
During the debate Members discussed the impact of the development on to the boundary wall of the objector. Members were of the view that the development would create a terrace effect and also considered the inability of objector to maintain his boundary wall and guttering.
Members discussed the character of the development on existing neighbouring properties, sought and received clarification on the location of the garage for the property and discussed the possible loss of light to neighbouring properties.
Following a motion to refuse planning permission which was carried lost 5 votes to 6 against, the Committee reverted to the recommendation in the report to grant planning permission, this was not carried by 5 votes to 6 votes against. Members returned to the motion to refuse planning permission which was carried by 6 votes to 5 and during the substantive vote, the motion was carried by 6 votes to 5 votes. Therefore it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds of:
· Excessive bulk, size and proximity to the boundary, unbalancing symmetry of the pair and creating a terracing effect so harm to streetscene.
· Overbearing and excessive enclosure effect on neighbouring properties (Nos.39 and 43) resulting from size and position of extension (single storey element for No.39 and single/two storey element for No.43).