Agenda item

To consider report PES/406bof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE.

The Committee considered report PES/406b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Demolition of existing garage and erection of proposed two storey side, single storey side and single storey rear extensions.

Councillors A Belben, Burrett, and Jaggard declared they had visited the site.

The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought permission to extend a detached house on St Mary’s Drive in Pound Hill.  The Officer confirmed that the site was not within the Sussex North Water Resource Zone and was therefore not impacted by water neutrality restrictions, and then gave detail of the various relevant planning considerations as detailed in the report.

Kieran Gill, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The extension was sought to enable a multi-generational family to live together with sufficient space.

·       Previous applications for an extension to the property had been submitted, withdrawn/refused, reduced in size, and resubmitted on two occasions.

·       There were many different styles of home on St Mary’s Drive, a number of which had been substantially extended, including the neighbouring houses.  The proposal was therefore not out of character.

James Nayler, the agent, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The size and mass of the proposed extension was appropriate – the two-storey side extension was in a large open area of the site, and the proposal resulted in a dwelling that was less deep than previously-refused applications at the same site.

·       There was no negative impact on neighbours’ amenity as the distances between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring houses complied with standards.

·       All materials used in the proposed design of the extensions were in keeping with the existing building.

The Committee then considered the application.  Clarity was sought regarding the distances to neighbouring houses – it was confirmed that the nearest point from the proposed extension to the boundary with 24 Byron Close was 805mm.  Committee members discussed the relationship between the two properties and whether the proposal could have a negative impact on the neighbour’s amenity.  It was noted that the residents of 24 Byron Close had not objected to the proposal.

Following a query from a Committee member, the Officer clarified that the proposed single-storey extensions were not able to be constructed under permitted development rights due to the siting and size of each of the elements of the proposal. The cumulative impact of the resultant development needed to be considered in this case.

A Committee member raised the matter of the previously-submitted applications at the site, which had been withdrawn or refused based on their size.  The Officer clarified that it was not within the remit of the Local Planning Authority to advise applicants on the detailed design specifications of any resubmitted applications.

Committee members queried the reasons for the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application and suggested that the proposals would not be out of place considering the mix of styles and sizes of properties in the area.  The Officer clarified that a number of those properties were granted permission for extensions prior to the issuing of new guidance and policy (such as the Local Plan and Urban Design SPD) which set out tighter regulations on the size and style of residential extensions.  It was also highlighted that there was an unusual relationship between no. 54 and the neighbouring properties, which made it difficult to compare to other extensions in the area.  The Committee discussed the streetscene and noted that applications for extensions were taken on a case-by-case basis.

A vote was taken on the recommendation to refuse the application as set out in the report, which was overturned.

The Committee discussed alternative proposals and possible conditions to attach to the planning permission, were it to be granted.  It was agreed that these should be based on the standard conditions for extensions to residential homes with any further conditions added as necessary (to be determined by the Planning Officers).  A proposal to permit the application was moved and seconded – the Committee explained that it believed the design and appearance of the proposed scheme was in keeping with the streetscene due to the variety of unique properties in the local area.  It was also highlighted that the distances between the dwelling and the neighbouring houses complied with all policy requirements, and there had been no objections from neighbours that related to material planning considerations.

The Committee then voted on the proposal to permit the application.

RESOLVED

Permit subject to the following conditions:

1.     The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

2.     The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plans as listed below save as varied by the conditions hereafter: (Drawing numbers to be added)

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.     The materials and finishes of the external walls and roofs of the proposed two storey side, single storey side and single storey rear extensions hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture to those of the existing dwelling.

REASON: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy CH3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030.

4.     Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revising, revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other openings (other than those shown on the plans hereby approved) shall be formed in the north, south or east elevations of the extension/building without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application in that behalf.

REASON: To protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties at 52 St Mary’s Drive and 24 Byron Close, in accordance with Policy CH3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030.

5.     The windows on the north elevation of the building shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass and apart from any top-hung vent, be fixed to be permanently non-opening.

REASON: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property at 24 Bryon Close in accordance with Policy CH3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030.

NPPF Statement –

In determining this planning application, the Local Planning Authority assessed the proposal against all material considerations and has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions where possible and required, by:

•      Seeking amended plans/additional information to address identified issues during the course of the application.

This decision has been taken in accordance with the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework, as set out in article 35, of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015.