Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

Councillor Morse declared an interest as she lived in the neighbourhood and left the meeting during consideration of this item.

The Project Manager (Planning) (KW) presented the application for the erection of conservatory to front elevation.

Mr Beales spoke against the application. He made the following points:-

·         measurements on the submitted sketch drawings are incorrect - the distance between my un-fenced boundary and the proposed extension would be less than 1m;

·         would cast a shadow over my main window reducing light in my living room;

·         the proposed extension, because of its size and character is out of keeping with the character of a pair of semi-detached houses and would have a detrimental effect on the character of the building;

·         all other extensions and conservatories attached to properties in the immediate area are located at the rear of the buildings;

·         the proposed extension is out of keeping with other porches on houses of a similar style within the immediate area;

·         all porches in the immediate area project less than 1.5 m This proposal extends for almost 3 m;

·         the extension cannot be described as a porch;

·         extension does not cover the front door - the proposed extension has a door on the side thus creating a separate entrance into the house;

·         Beacon Heath is not a street in the conventional sense of the word but a road with a continuous number of houses on one side facing the sports facilities at Arena Park .Saracens rugby pitches and Eastern Fields;

·         Beacon Heath comprises of approximately 50 houses - numbers 1--25 were built in the 1930s with French Windows at the front. Some have erected porches across the front of the house. Some still have the orginal windows and patio doors in place;

·         houses from no 25 onwards were built in the 1940s and 50s;

·         some have small porches and others have canopies over their front doors;

·         none have porches which extend across the front or are in close proximity to neighbouring windows;

·         that from 25 to the end of the road should be treated separately from the first 25 built in the 1930s; and

·         to allow such a large extension would have a detrimental visual effect on houses which are of a totally different style from those numbered 1-25

Mr Berry spoke in support of the application. He raised the following points:-

• speaking on behalf of property owner;
• have spoken to five neighbours who advised of the dimensions of their extensions;
• proposal is smaller than a conservatory;
• Beacon Heath is classed as a street;
• other extensions in the street are polycarbonate lean-to’s with dwarf walls;
• the objection of the neighbour are not supported by the site inspection party;
• two metre, four panel high fence to be provided so the extension will be screened;

·         there will be insufficient harm on the street scene to justify refusal;

·         a number of alterations to the front of properties had occurred along this road either porches or conservatories; and

• application submitted on basis of advice from planning officers.

It was noted that extensions to the rear of properties were more appropriate and that the design of the conservatory was unsuitable for the front.

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

RESOLVED that planning permission for the erection of conservatory to front elevation be REFUSED, as:-

(a)        the proposal is contrary to Policy DG1 (b), (g), (h) and (i) of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 because the proposed development would not conform to the established urban grain of Beacon Heath, its massing and materials would not relate well to the adjoining building, the proposal would not promote local distinctiveness and would not contribute positively to townscape quality; and

(b)        the proposal is contrary to Principle 2 of the Council’s adopted Householder’s Guide to Extension Design Supplementary Planning Document because the proposed development would project forward of the front elevation, it would not respect existing building lines and the pattern of development in the immediate area, and this would adversely affect the character and appearance of the street scene.