Agenda item

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MH) presented the application for a replacement ground floor extensions on north east, north west and south west elevations and glazed porch on south east elevation.

He referred to the two key issues of impact on neighbouring properties and impact of design on the Topsham Conservation Area and in response to a Member’s query he confirmed that the total length of the extension proposed in combination with a previous extension was seven metres. Members were also advised that there was some divergence from household guidance but that each application should be considered on its merit.

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

• sympathetic to applicant’s wish to enhance their home in part with view to ensuring its suitability in later years in order to remain in the area but feel that the proposal would be unsuitable for the Topsham Conservation Area;
• the proposal will be a large extension in a garden that is not very long or wide and will impact adversely on the neighbouring properties;
• existing extension is 3.5 metres from the rear wall of the house and, with a further three metres, will exceed seven metres which is not permissable under planning regulations;
• it will set an unacceptable precedent for the infill of other gardens and make it difficult to preserve existing open land left in the area;
• accept it is a semi-detached and not a terraced property but the Monmouth Street area is one of historical and architectural importance and the principle of resisting infill should be maintained;
• neighbours have a right to privacy and walls and roofs with windows are of such a size and proximity to cause overbearing, become oppressive and impact adversely on neighbouring amenity;
• housing shortage is not an issue but question of infill is; and
• cannot support the application as the property will have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area and adversely affect the amenity of neighbours.

Mr Martin spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

• in 30 years of living on Monmouth Street never has an application failed on so many counts in terms of policy compliance, detrimental effect to neighbours and  impact on the historic character of this conservation area. The neighbours’ amenity will be harmed. To say that the there is no greater threat to privacy than standing in the garden of the property is absurd. As with other applications, the view from the garden is irrelevant;
• there are many policy non-compliances of the Householder Guide to Extensions adopted by Exeter City Council:
• natural light and outlook will be significantly affected for neighbours.  Almost 50% of the garden of 16 will be subsumed by the structure, towering over the garden wall on the only side that receives direct sunlight, it’s black slate roof overshadowing the outlook. From inside 16B, and from the garden, the side extension will be overbearing and overshadowing;
• privacy will be affected by new direct sight lines created into the main bedroom, bathroom and garden of 16B;
• the scale and massing is not subservient to the original property but increases the footprint by 120% -  that is unambiguously not subservient;
• the roofs should match the main roof in terms of shape and pitch - the roof forms for porch and extension do not;
• the maximum depth permitted is 3.5 meters from the rear of the existing property. This is not an application for a three metre extension, but for seven metres, as a four metre extension was built recently. It is non-compliant;
• the maximum width permitted is two thirds of the original rear elevation but the extension will cover the entire rear elevation;
• to approve this proposal would be against the specific guidance of the Exeter City Council Core Strategy. Of the seven key principles defined, six have been objectively demonstrated to be breached;
• policies are designed to protect the community from rogue applications. Ignoring them cannot be justified;
• it does not increase affordable housing but creates an entirely unaffordable home close to £1 million in value;
• to pass an application with such an overwhelming number of objections and so many clear breaches of policy, will render the planning process, local community feelings, and the designation of this street as part of a Conservation Area, irrelevant;
• this is not a modest extension. It wraps around three sides of the house and builds right to the boundary with neighbours on both sides, where it is overbearing and overshadowing; and
• the first application for a massive 10 metre extension was designed to provide leverage for a reduced extension in a revised application and the Committee should not be swayed by it.

.

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

• acting as agent for the applicant and refute concerns regarding loss of amenity, overbearing and loss of light;
• planning officers have been provided with detailed proposals and models including a comparative sun shadow study showing impact of sun over a twelve month period. The latter shows that there will be no impact on loss of light;
• design is acceptable with a hipped roof reducing the eaveheights;
• proposal is to ensure a sustainable use in later years for the applicants and will provide a ground floor bedroom with shower room in order to maintain independent living;
• the rebuilt garage will be of the same footprint;
• reference to the previous extension by a Member relates in fact to 16B and not this property; and
• confirm that the applicants are of retirement age.

Members who had attended the site visit did not feel that the proposal was excessive or overbearing and considered it would not have a significant impact on neighbouring properties. It was noted that a precedent for infill had already been set in respect of 16B.

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

RESOLVED that planning permission for replacement ground floor extensions on north east, north west and south west elevations and glazed porch on south east elevation be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

(1)        The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason:  To ensure compliance with sections 91-92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

(2)        The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details received by the Local Planning Authority on 5 July 2017 (including revised Design and Access Statement received 5 January 2018; dwg. nos 7528-01; 7528-14 Rev C; 7528-15 Rev C) as modified by other conditions of this consent.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings.

(3)        No site machinery or plant shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no demolition or construction related deliveries received or dispatched from the site except between the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am to 1pm Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and/or working nearby.

Informatives

 1)        In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way and has granted planning permission.

 2)        This site is not located within a Smoke Control Area and so there is no requirement on the type of appliance that can be installed or the type of fuel that can be burnt. The applicant should be advised however of the potential for solid fuel fires and stoves to cause a nuisance to neighbours by means of smoke, fumes or odour if they do not burn cleanly or dispersion from the chimney is poor.