166
The Committee considered an application for proposed alterations and extensions to the rear of an existing property to provide additional ground floor living accommodation and a first floor bedroom suite at 147 Lexden Road, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it had been called in by Councillor Buston. The Committee had before it a report and amendment sheet in which all the information was set out. The Committee made a site visit in order to assess the impact of the proposal upon the locality and the suitability of the proposal for the site.
James Ryan, Principal Planning Officer, presented the report and assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Elizabeth White addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. She was speaking on behalf of a number of neighbouring residents who had indicated their concern with the application. She referred to the single storey proposal which had obtained approval and the first floor element of the proposal now under consideration which had been scaled back from the original drawings. She was of the view, nevertheless, that the proposed height would be oppressive and have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties despite the planning officer’s view that the impact would be within tolerable levels. She was also of the view that the proposed design was industrial in character and, as such, related poorly to the host building. She was concerned about the long term impact of the proposal and requested the Committee to reject the application.
Kevin Hall addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He referred to the existing planning permission for a single storey extension at the site and the fact that it would be possible to use permitted development rights to further extend by means of a large rear facing dormer. The applicant, however, was seeking to improve on the visual impact this type of extension would create which was how the current proposal, with a smaller first floor element, had been formulated. He confirmed that the Inspector, in dismissing a previous appeal against refusal by the applicant, had considered the proposed design to be careful and innovative and, as such, it was entirely reasonable for a contemporary approach to be pursued by the applicant. He considered the proposal would have no negative impact on the outlook for neighbours and there were no material issues in relation to overlooking.
Councillor Buston attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He explained that he had called in the proposal following requests made by residents. He welcomed the restriction on permitted development rights in so far as the access to the rear of the extension would prevent the later addition of a balcony. He confirmed that his reasons for calling in the application were accurately and fully reflected in the Committee report and he thanked the Planning Officer for the time and effort which had been put into securing the current revised proposal. He requested the Committee to give careful consideration as to whether this type of development was appropriate in the location of the application site.
The Principal Planning Officer explained that the current design proposal had been considerably scaled back from a previous application which had been refused by the Council and at Appeal. However, he confirmed that the Appeal inspector had found the design to be acceptable. In compiling the Committee report he considered the impact on amenity to be acceptable and he confirmed that it would not be possible for the roof area to be converted for use as a balcony at a later date.
Members of the Committee generally considered the design of the extension to be undesirable in relationship to the host building but acknowledged the clear guidance given by the Appeal Inspector and, as such, the lack of valid reasons to refuse the application.
In response to a specific question about the effect on neighbours’ views from their properties, Vincent Pearce, the Major Development Manager, took the opportunity to remind the Committee of the difference between outlook and view in planning terms and the respective weight that could or could not be afforded to each consideration. He also indicated that, the revision of the proposals by the pulling and setting back the first floor element had delivered a design which had resolved the oppressive nature of the previous application.
RESOLVED (NINE voted FOR and THREE voted AGAINST) that the planning application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the amendment sheet, in relation amendments to Conditions 3 and 4 and an additional condition to provide for the removal of permitted development rights to prevent the installation of windows or roof lights above ground floor level to the east and west elevations of the extension.