Agenda item

Report attached

The application before the committee related to a detached house which was situated within the Gidea Park Special Character Area.  It was proposed to construct a first floor side extension over the existing garage together with a front extension to the garage.  The planning issues were set out in the report including issues relating to the design and appearance on the host dwelling, the impact on the character of the area and impact on amenity of surrounding residential properties. 

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant. The objector expressed concern about loss of daylight and outlook to the flank windows of her property, summarised the history of the planning proposals in respect of the neighbouring dwelling and the judicial challenge which resulted in the grant of planning permission being quashed. The objector considered that the neighbouring property had been extended and was far larger than the original property. The applicant responded by referring to the results of the light survey and the design and scale of the extension being similar to a significant number of other extensions in the neighbourhood.

During the debate several members sought clarification on the loss of light from the window facing the development. Members were informed that a light survey had been submitted in support of the application.  Staff suggested to Members that the survey conclusions appear to be based on the window being a secondary window whereas in fact it was originally a primary light source serving a dining room which has subsequently been integrated with other accommodation and made open plan.  Staff reiterated points set out in the officer report and made clear that though the light survey concluded that there would be low impact on the affected area, the impact upon the dining room window would be noticeable and it was here that the judgement of Members was called for taking into account also  that the kitchen/dining area benefitted from light access from other windows.  Members were informed that the judgement of the impact on the neighbouring property was finely balanced, while there would be loss of light to the former primary widow to the kitchen/dining room and some loss of outlook, that window was no longer the sole light source and the other windows providing daylight to the room were not significantly affected.

In regard to street scene and character issues, Officers explained that the eaves and the pitch heights of the extension as reduced made the extension appear subordinate to the house and not inappropriate or out of character with the surrounding area. Officers showed Members photographs of a number of examples nearby of other extensions and neighbouring dwellings with a relationship similar to that proposed. Officers concluded that the extension would not affect the spacing between the properties to such a degree that would material harm the streetscene.

A member commented that many houses in the area had benefited from similar extensions to their properties.

Other members stated that they were familiar with the area and that other surrounding premises that had similar extensions to those proposed in this application and considered it acceptable.

Following the debate it was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted.

The vote for the resolution was carried by 9 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions. Councillors McGeary and Thompson abstained from voting on the resolution.