Agenda item

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the erection of a single storey rear extension including raising the roof of the existing outbuilding to create a habitable space including alterations to openings.

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance), which set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the erection of a single storey rear extension including raising the roof of the existing outbuilding to create a habitable space including alterations to openings.

The application (6/2019/3098/EM) was refused for the following reason: 

‘The proposed extension and alterations to the outbuilding will result in a development which would dominate the rear garden of the application site. The proposed rear extension, combined with the existing outbuilding, will see the rear elevation extend over 10m from the main rear of the original building line and at its widest point, extend over halfway across the rear garden resulting in a disproportionate addition. In terms of outlook, neighbour amenity is likely to be affected due to the additional length and height of the proposal. As a result, the application fails to comply with Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme’.

The subject property was a two storey mid-terrace property located on the eastern side of Homestead Lane.  The appeal site being set back from the highway behind a grass verge, pathway and relatively deep front garden. The rear garden of the property includes an attached outbuilding which is adjoined to a neighbouring building at 9 Homestead Lane. The rear garden backs onto the gardens of Homestead Court.

The key issue in the determination of this appeal was the impact the proposed installation would have on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

The application sought Estate Management Scheme consent to raise the roof level of the existing outbuilding and erect a single storey rear extension at the back of the existing outbuilding to facilitate its conversion into a habitable space. Alterations to existing openings within the outbuilding were also proposed.

There was an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Scheme Consent to raise the roof of an existing outbuilding, alter existing openings within the outbuilding and erect an extension to the rear of the outbuilding to create a habitable space. The appellant’s letter of appeal and supporting documents were attached at Appendix 1 and the delegated Officer’s report for application 6/2019/3098/EM was attached at Appendix 2.

Members gave consideration to the size of the proposed development and it was felt that there would be an impact on neighbouring property; including loss of light and the site being over developed.  A discussion ensued on whether the development should be linear (proposal coming out approximately 10m from the back of the house) or the width of the house, as the overall percentage of the increase of floor space was not extensive.

The appellant had provided photographic evidence to support his proposal. The appellant stated that the proposed development was to create a downstairs toilet and day room to allow an elderly relative with a serious health condition to be cared for at the appellant’s home.

Whilst Members were sensitive to the appellant’s wishes, the Estate Management Scheme had to be considered when proposing additions to homes covered by the scheme.  It was suggested that Officers work with the appellant to provide a workable solution for their proposal.

(Note: Cllr A Chesterman had declared an interest and withdrew for this item. Minute 41 refers)

RESOLVED:

(5 for and 1 abstention)

That Members uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal