To consider report PES/326gof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE
The Committee considered report PES/326g of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:
Loft conversion incorporating a rear dormer and erection of first floor extension over existing garage, one roof light on rear roof slope and three roof lights on front roof slope (amended description & amended plans received)
Councillors Belben, Hart, Irvine, Jaggard and P C Smith declared they had visited the site.
The Principal Planning Officer (MR) provided a verbal summation of the application and updated the Committee that the application had been revised to exclude the rear dormer and consequently paragraphs 5.11 and 5.12 within the report were no longer relevant. The application description and recommendation had been amended as follows:
Erection of first floor extension over existing garage, one roof light on rear roof slope and three roof lights on front roof slope (amended description & amended plans received)
REFUSE - For the following reason(s):-
1. The proposed first floor side extension, by virtue of their design, scale/massing, bulk and prominence, would appear visually dominant and discordant, would fail to respect the scale, design and form of the original property, and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the visual amenities of the street scene. The proposal conflicts with the Policies CH2 and CH3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030, the Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (2016) and the relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy (2019).
In updating the Committee further, the Principal Planning Officer clarified the issues in regard to the design, scale and prominence of the proposed extension in relation to the existing design of the house and its context in a group of four similar houses. The Officer described harm to the visual amenity of the area and the street scene.
Paul Clarke (the agent) spoke in support of the planning application, whilst Councillor Millar-Smith (Ward member) also spoke on the application (both objecting to the recommendation for refusal).
The Committee then considered the application. In response to issues raised, the Principal Planning Officer:
· Confirmed the difference between the height of the proposed extension and that of the extension previously permitted.
· Responded to the two concerns with the side extension relating to its bulk and mass, together with the loss of the barn hip element of the roof and how the resultant building would appear incongruous with the alteration to the shape of the main roof and the addition of the barn hip extension roof to the main roof as altered. The extension would not have a meaningful setdown and the proposed first floor side extension would result in the loss of the barn hip element of the main roof.
· Acknowledged that the previously permitted extension would result in the provision of less accommodation for the applicant than the new extension proposal.
· Identified that other examples of properties discussed were in different contexts, and were houses of different design.
The Committee expressed concern that a precedent could be set that could lead to similar constructions or amplify further applications. It was felt that whilst it was regrettable, there were some fundamental issues regarding the design and appearance of the proposal given its design, scale and prominence which would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and amenity.
Refuse for the amended reason above and for those listed in report PES/326g.