Agenda item

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that the subsidence issue raised by the objector was a building control matter.  The Committee was further advised that should it be minded to approve the application, an additional condition to require the extension to be ancillary to the main dwelling should be added.

Mr Jon Davis made a statement on behalf of 5 neighbours in West Street objecting to the application raising concerns regarding overshadowing; visual impact and adverse impact generally on the street scene.  He explained that the plans had not been drawn to scale correctly and that the proposed extension would be closer to the neighbour at No. 11 than shown. Furthermore, the proposal was not aligned with the building line.  It was considered that the separation between the extension and the main dwelling was important.  He referred to subsidence in the past, commenting that the risk of further subsidence should be established.  He referred to the former council houses opposite with extensions, stating that most were not visible. Finally, he commented that the extension should be better designed and should not have the appearance of a separate dwelling.

Mrs Collins the applicant made a statement in support of the application explaining that the current proposal was a revision of the original application taking account of the concerns raised.  She reported that a structural engineer would be employed and would have regard to Building Regulations. She explained that the proposed extension would have a lesser footprint than the existing garage, which needed replacing.  She reported that there would be no loss of trees and that she could see no reason why there would be any damage to drains as a result of one extra bathroom.  She explained that the proposal would not result in a separate dwelling.  She explained that the front door would be re-sited.  She confirmed that the plan was incorrect in that her garden ran further to the south than was shown.

One Member commented that the design was not pleasing, with the roof lines appearing confused. He suggested that it would not fit well in the street scene.  He considered that the proposal would look like a separate building to the main house but that this was not a sufficiently material planning reason to refuse the application

Other Members supported the proposal.

One Member referred to the windows in the front elevation of the main house compared to those in the extension suggesting that the windows in the extension should be matching.  On being put to the meeting, there was a straw poll of 6 votes for and 10 against the suggestion that should the Committee be minded to approve the application there should be a condition to reduce the windows in the extension to match those of the main dwelling.

By 15 votes to 1 it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that application CHD/9684/3 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further condition to require the extension to be ancillary to the main dwelling; and

(b)        that in view of the discrepancies in the plans referred to by the objectors and the applicant, the Officers be requested to check their accuracy in this case.