Agenda item

To consider report PES/437aof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE.

The Committee considered report PES/437a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Retrospective single storey rear extension and loft conversion with hip to gable and dormer extensions including retention of alterations to windows, doors, roof tiles, tile hanging (amended description).

Councillors Ali, Jaggard, Nawaz, and Pritchard declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought permission for the redevelopment of a bungalow on St Mary’s Drive in Pound Hill.  The works had already been undertaken, and so the application was retrospective.  The Officer then gave details of the various relevant planning considerations as set out in the report.

E Hairani, a neighbour of the site, spoke in objection to the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The extension was overly large and dominant.  The grey roof tiles did not match the semi-detached neighbouring house.

·       Issues had arisen regarding the property’s boundary and damage to a brick wall on the driveway. 

·       If permission were to be granted, it could set a precedent for allowing similar works (i.e. larger extensions and differently-coloured roof tiles) for neighbouring properties.

Mirza Zamal, a neighbour of the site, spoke in objection to the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The applicant had removed hedges between neighbouring properties, which had caused disagreement between neighbours.

·       Communication with the applicant was limited and had caused confusion about the level of works being undertaken.

·       The works had caused further issues such as boundary encroachment, the erecting of a bollard on a shared driveway, and access to rear garden gates.

Josh Healey, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       Pound Hill’s streetscene had a wide variety of housing in different styles, shapes, colours and sizes.

·       The works on the property blended sympathetically with the local streetscene, so should be considered compliant with Local Plan policies CH2 and CH3.

·       There were many properties in the local area which had similar features, such as grey roof tiles and grey window frames, some of which had been granted planning permission in recent years.

Kevan McCarthy, Ward Councillor for Pound Hill North & Forge Wood, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       There was no consistency in the style of houses on St Mary’s Drive and surrounding roads.  Many properties had been built or extended over the years and the streetscene had been constantly changing.

·       There were many other properties with white rendering in the area and/or with grey roof tiles and window frames.

·       If the application were to be refused the works would be required to be reverted, which would be costly and wasteful.

Justin Russell, Ward Councillor for Pound Hill North & Forge Wood, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The local area had undergone several phases of development which had led to a varied mix of properties along St Mary’s Drive.  This property did not stand out as having a negative impact on the streetscene.

·       Many bungalows in the area had been extended and redeveloped, at the front and the rear, in a range of colours and materials.

·       The works were of a high quality and the resulting property was attractive.

The Committee then considered the application.  Committee members sought clarification on the reason for the recommendation to refuse; it was confirmed that this was solely in regard to the materials used in the development.  These were significantly different to the previous materials of the property and to those of neighbouring houses.

A Committee member queried why the works were not permissible under permitted development rights.  The Planning Officer explained that in addition to the non-compliance of the materials, the flat roof extension was above the height of the existing eaves.  The dormer was also built on to the rear extension, rather than original roof.  The development was therefore taller than allowed under permitted development, so was required to be considered via a planning application.

The Committee discussed the development’s impact on the streetscene and asked for further explanation from the Planning Officer.  It was explained that generally, properties of the same type tended to use similar materials.  There were runs of types of property along St Mary’s Drive – the streetscene in this case referred not to the entirety of the road, but a smaller section of the road around the property.  The area was defined mostly by bungalows with red/brown roof tiles and which generally used the same palette of materials and colours.  It was also highlighted that mis-matching roof tiles on adjoined properties harmed the streetscene.  Some Committee members commented that the property was attractive and had been modernised.

A Committee member commented that the consequences of refusal of the application (i.e. the reversion of the works) would be significant for the applicant in cost, time, and waste.  It was however highlighted that retrospective planning applications were not the preferred route.

Committee members enquired about the other matters raised by the neighbours of the property, such as the erection of a bollard on the driveway, damage to a brick wall, and the disputed property boundaries.  The Planning Officer confirmed that a bollard did not generally require planning permission if it was under one metre in height.  The matters raised were not a part of the application and were civil matters rather than issues to be controlled through the planning system.

The Committee then moved to a vote on the officer recommendation to refuse the application, which was overturned.

A Committee member moved that the application be permitted, which was seconded.  The Planning Officer was consulted as to the conditions to be attached to the proposed permission.  It was confirmed that one condition relating to the plans and a National Planning Policy Framework statement would be required.  No further conditions were necessary as the application was retrospective.  A Committee member asked whether it was possible to attach any conditions to address the concerns raised by the next-door neighbours of the site, for example the boundary between the properties.  The Planning Officer highlighted that the concerns raised were civil matters.  If the application had not been retrospective, an informative may have been able to be added, but the matters could not otherwise be controlled by planning conditions.  The Committee then voted on the motion to permit.

RESOLVED

Permit subject to the following condition:

1.       The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plans listed below:

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

NPPF Statement

The Local Planning Authority has determined this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

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.