Agenda item

To consider the report of the Head of Planning and Building Control.

(Report circulated)

Councillor Martin declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to him though his previous employment.

Councillor Shepherd declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to him though his work as a City Councillor.

The Head of Planning and Building Control presented the planning application for an extension to the front of the existing house and the raising of existing roof to provide habitable accommodation within roof space at 12 Little Johns Cross Hill, Exeter. The site was in the Alphin Brook Conservation Area.

This application sought to bring forward the building line to be nearly in line with the front building line of the garage and a proposed bay window would sit in line with the garage. The proposal would also create a first floor level of accommodation. To achieve this, the roof height would be raised by about 1.3 metres and there would be a 1.3 metre high render band around the property, which would be disguised by extending the eaves on the front elevation. Roof lights would light the proposed first floor level accommodation.

Members were circulated with an update sheet giving details of two additional letters of objection.

Members were informed that the principle of accommodation in the roofspace was acceptable although the submitted proposal was of poor architectural design. The recommendation was for refusal for the reason as set out in the report.

Ms Lenton (applicant) spoke in support of the application. She raised the following points:-

• this was 1950 bungalow and this application was to create a family home and improve the bungalow
• the proposal would enhance and improve the conservation area
• had been in talks with planning officers for a year
• the position of the garage does not allow for a front door
• officers had accepted the principle of conversion to two storey dwelling
• there was render on neighbouring dwellings
• would revisit the bay window if officers requested
• this proposal would improve the property

Councillor Coates, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on this item. He raised the following points:-

• the applicant had been talking to planning officers for a over a year to find an acceptable proposal
• the applicant had received some ambiguous advice
• considered that a refusal could not be robustly defended at appeal
• garages were a feature of all the bungalows on Little John’s Cross
• although the garage did not meet the requirements of the Highways Authority they had not objected to the application
• the report stated that the proposal would be a discordant building in the  street scene; there was already discord in the street scene
• overall the proposal would enhance the street scene and would not have a negative impact on the conservation area
• would be unreasonable to refuse this application.

Members acknowledged that the principle of conversion from a bungalow to provide accommodation in the roofspace was acceptable.

Whilst some Members felt that the design of the proposal was acceptable, other Members considered the design to be unsatisfactory and that the proposal would have a negative impact on the conservation area and be detrimental to the street scene.

RESOLVED that planning permission for an extension to front of existing house and raising of existing roof to provide habitable accommodation within roof space, be refused for the following reason:

1)         The proposed development is located within the Alphin Brook Conservation Area. The proposal is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 5, Policies CO6 and CO7 of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 to 2016, Policies C1 and DG1 (f), (g) and (h) of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995 to 2011 and to the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Householder’s Guide to Extension Design’ because the proposed development would:

(i) by reason of its size and design from unsympathetic additions, which would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the existing building;

(ii) by reason of its size and design result in a discordant building which would have a detrimental impact on the character of the wider streetscene and the wider visual amenity; and

(iii) neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

(Report circulated)