Single storey side infill extension (retrospective).
427
The Committee considered an application for a single storey side infill extension (retrospective) at 3 Egret Crescent, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it had been called in by Councillor J. Young. 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, together with Andrew Tyrrell, Planning Manager, assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Liam Ryan, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He explained that the application was for a small infill extension to link the garage to the house which was similar to two extensions which had received planning approval in the neighbourhood. The extension had been sympathetically designed to improve the internal flow of the house. He considered allegations about the use of the house were not relevant to the application and he confirmed that he had worked with council officers to submit the application which complied with all necessary policies.
Councillor J. Young attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. She confirmed that she had called in the application due to the problematic history associated with the site and the previous attempts to create an 8 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation. She was disappointed that the application had been submitted after the work had commenced and considered it not usual for applications to be submitted retrospectively. As such, she was of the view that the application should not be considered to be entirely compliant with Council policies. She was concerned about the number of occupants likely to be residing at the dwelling as well as the applicant’s commitment to create additional off road parking which had not materialised.
Councillor T. Young attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He also voiced his disappointment regarding the retrospective nature of the application and the loss of amenity to the surrounding area due to the blocking off of the parking area to the front of the dwelling. He explained that local neighbours had considered that rules had been flouted by the applicant and asked the Committee to consider refusing the application in order to send a message that this practice should not be encouraged.
In response to comments raised, the Planning Officer explained that the applicant was permitted to convert the garage to a gym and to alter the inside of the dwelling without consent, existing parking provision for a four bedroom dwelling had not been reduced so existing parking problems were not exacerbated and the application was not for a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) but, in any event, a conversion to a six bed HMO was possible without consent. He also confirmed that permission was required only due to the four metre height of the extension and, whilst it was unfortunate that building work had continued, the applicant did have a right to apply retrospectively for permission.
Some members of the Committee were concerned about the similarity of the application drawings with those previously submitted for the HMO application and were of the view that the refusal of that previous application should be maintained on this occasion also. The accuracy of the drawings in terms of the front and rear surface treatments was also questioned in terms of the validity of the application.
Other members of the Committee, whilst sympathising with the views expressed by the visiting Councillors, not welcoming the retrospective nature of the application, were of the view that there was no material planning justification to refuse the application. Reference was also made to the suitability of the shingle surface applied to the front and rear of the property and the inability of the spaces at the front of the property to be used for car parking purposes as well as safety concerns in relation to some of the building works and the potential to refer the work for Buildings Regulations review.
The Planning Manager reminded the Committee members that the application was for an extension to the dwelling which they were required to consider entirely on its own merits. He confirmed that inconsistency of the existing surface treatment with the information contained in the application drawings was not a suitable ground for refusal of the application and explained to the Committee members that the risks associated with a decision to refuse the application were very high and he strongly advised the Committee members against this course or to consider invoking the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure if this course was likely.
RESOLVED (SIX voted FOR and FOUR voted AGAINST) that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.