244
Councillor Lilley (in respect of his acquaintance with the agent for the application) declared a non-pecuniary interest pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).
The Committee considered an application for a two storey front extension at 6 St Monance Way, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it had been called in by Councillor Gamble. The Committee had before it a report in which all the information was set out. The Committee made a site visit in order to assess the impact of the proposals upon the locality and the suitability of the proposals for the site.
Chris Harden, Planning Officer, presented the report and, assisted the Committee in its deliberations. He explained that conditions had been proposed to provide for a building works management plan to address concerns expressed by local residents and for the removal of permitted development rights in relation to any further extensions which would secure the current size of the amenity area to the rear of the property.
Ann Johnson addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the applications. She explained that she was speaking on behalf of ten local residents who had objected to the application and she considered that the concerns expressed in the objections had not been listened to. She was of the view that the application was an overdevelopment of the site and referred to the amenity area size requirement included in policy DP16 and the requirements of the Extending Your House? document. She was also concerned about the loss of light which would negatively impact on Nos 4, 8 and 11 St Monance Way as well as the impact on the street scene due to the fact that the design of the extension was not in keeping with the area. She further considered that the parkin provision was inadequate and made reference to the current occupier’s practice of parking vehicles on the highway, causing congestion close to a blind corner in the road.
Steve Norman addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the applications. He explained the personal circumstances of the applicant which was prompting the need for a larger number of bedrooms at the property and made reference to discussions with planning officers on site which had revealed that a front extension may provide a satisfactory means to create the additional space required for the applicant and his extended family. He did not consider that the application would negatively affect neighbouring residents, particularly in relation to the size of the rear garden and also in relation to the parking provision which was in accordance with parking space standards. He also referred to the variable building line in the area generally and cited a property in a nearby street which had a building line closer to the footway than the application site. He explained that current permitted development rights would allow the applicant to provide a two storey three metre extension at the rear of the property without the need to seek permission.
Councillor Gamble attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He explained that a number of residents had objected to the proposal and that they considered that their concerns were of relevance and should be given consideration by the Committee. In terms of the design of the extension, he considered that this would be the only two storey front extension in the area and, as such, was not in keeping with the existing street scene. He acknowledged that the parking proposals accorded with the Council’s standards and that the Highway Authority had not objected but considered that the applicant’s practice of parking vehicles on the highway contributed negatively to the existing parking problems in the area. He was concerned that the existing amenity area on the site did not accord with the guidance set out in the Council’s policy DP16 and was of the view that this guidance needed to be complied with given the size of the house which would be created as a result of the proposal.
The Planning Officer explained that a full explanation of the objector’s concerns had been contained within the report together with reasons as to why, in his view, these concerns did not constitute appropriate reasons to recommend refusal of the application. He emphasised that the standards for amenity land were by way of guidance only for existing dwellings and that the approval of the application would also provide a benefit in terms of securing the existing amount of amenity space on the site. He was of the view that the design was in keeping with the street scene whilst other properties in the area had variable building lines in relation to proximity to the highway. He considered that existing on street parking issues were not matters which could be considered in determining that application.
Members of the Committee acknowledged the various concerns expressed by residents, and, in particular, in relation to parking issues but accepted that these were matters which needed to be brought to the attention of the Highway Authority separately to the consideration of the planning application. The design was considered to be acceptable whilst the proposal accorded with the Council’s requirements in terms of outlook and light.
Nevertheless some members of the Committee expressed concern regarding the negative impact of the design on the street scene and in relation to the impermeable material to the front of the property in relation to its negative environmental impact and whether relevant permissions had been sought prior to its provision as well as the position of the existing dropped kerb on the right side of the property which would be required to be extended in order to adequately access the parking area to the front of the property. Further guidance was sought in respect of the addition of a landscape condition to provide for a more appealing front aspect to the property.
The Planning Officer confirmed that it would be possible to include a further landscaping condition to address concerns regarding the existing hardstanding material and general appearance of the front aspect of the property, together with an informative to the applicant in relation to the Highway Authority requirements for appropriate vehicular access to the parking spaces to the front of the property.
RESOLVED (EIGHT voted FOR, THREE voted AGAINST and ONE ABSTAINED) that the planning application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, together with a further landscaping condition to address concerns regarding the existing hardstanding material and general appearance of the front aspect of the property and an informative in relation to the Highway Authority requirements for appropriate vehicular access to the parking spaces to the front of the property.