Agenda item

Hempstead and Wigmore

Construction of a single storey front extension, together with a two-storey side/rear extension and a single storey rear extension - demolition of garage to rear.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and reminded the Committee that this application had been the subject of a site visit on 19 September 2016 at which the case officer had explained the application, summarised the representations received and set out the planning issues for consideration as they related to street scene, character of the area and residential amenity.

He drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out a summary of the concerns raised by neighbouring residents.

Responding to concerns raised at the site visit, the Head of Planning clarified the measurements of the proposed extensions, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet. In addition, he confirmed that there was no planning history for the application property.

He also reported upon a change to the section of the report titled ‘Design and Street Scene’ to state that Birch Grove was within the urban area as defined in the Local Plan and the street was residential in character, with the section that comprised the application property being characterised by semi detached properties.

In response to concerns that there was inadequate parking provision to serve the property, the Head of Planning suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, a new condition 5 be approved to require that prior to commencement of the development, the applicant provide information to the Local Planning Authority of details as to how two off street parking spaces could be provided on site.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Rodney Chambers spoke on this planning application as Ward Councillor and expressed concern that the proposed extensions would have a significant impact on the street scene as Birch Grove was primarily a road of semi detached dwellings with gaps between the properties to provide an open aspect. Therefore, to approve a side extension to this property would create a terracing effect which could create a precedent that over time would change the whole character of the street. In addition, he expressed concern that the proposed extensions were bulky and the occupiers at No. 64, being sited to the North of the application property would suffer loss of light to their bedroom.

The Committee discussed the planning application having regard to the wishes of the applicant to extend their existing property and balancing such request with the effect that the extensions would have upon the property and its location in the street scene and the effect upon the neighbouring property at No. 64. The Committee also had regard to other properties that had been extended in Birch Grove.

Decision:

Refused on the following ground:

The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site due to the following:

·         The proposed side extension will substantially close the gap between properties at first floor level, setting a precedent that will change and harm the character of the immediate area and street scene which is characterised by semi detached properties set apart with space at first floor level.

·         The rear extension will result in an unacceptable loss of light and outlook that the occupiers of the neighbouring property at 64 Birch Grove can reasonably expect to enjoy.

·         The application is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.