Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

 

 

The report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out the application which sought planning permission for the erection of a first floor side extension above part of the flat roofed garage.  The proposed extension would be set back from the front elevation by approximately 1.6 metres and set in from the side boundary by approximately 2.4 metres.  The roof would continue the ridge height of the existing dwelling.

 

The proposed extension would be finished in soft red facing brickwork laid in Flemish bond and reclaimed red clay pan tiles to match the existing dwelling. The proposed fenestration detailing would match the existing dwelling.

 

Officers, with regard to late representation made the following statement.

 

‘Members would have received a copy of a letter from the applicants supporting their proposal for the extension.

 

Planning permission was recently granted for a single storey flat roofed extension incorporating a basement on the side of this end of terrace house.  The extension has not yet been built.

 

This application proposes to construct a first floor extension above part of the approved extension to create a further bedroom with external dimensions measuring 3m wide by 3.7m deep.

 

The extension is designed to match the appearance of the dwelling in terms of materials, window style and size.

 

The extension generally accords with the Council’s guidance with regards to the design of extensions except that where there is a strong characteristic of wider spacing between homes (particularly at first floor level) and where there are open views across single storey built form as is the case in a number of Welwyn Garden City streets then proposals that even partly fill the first floor space with extensions need to be examined very carefully.

 

In this case the house is the first in Longcroft Lane and has a wider than usual distance to the side boundary with Church Road.  Adjacent to the boundary there is also a car park and so in visual terms there is a considerable and spacious gap adjacent to the house and so on balance it is felt that the very particular circumstances of this plot would make this relatively modest proposal acceptable without setting a precedent that could be easily repeated elsewhere in the street.

 

The recommendation therefore remains to permit subject to the conditions set out in the report.’

 

Site Description

 

The application site was located on a corner plot at the northern end of Longcroft Lane on the edge of the Town Centre.  Longcroft Lane was residential in character and featured properties of similar style, appearance and architectural detailing.

 

The site comprised of a two storey end of terrace property constructed of traditional red brick with a clay pantile roof.  It was set back from the highway with grass and hardstanding to the front.

 

Reason for Committee Consideration

 

This application is presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Cowan has objected to the application on the grounds that coupled with previous extensions this “would result in overdevelopment and would set a precedent of allowing 2 storey side extensions when this has not yet happened along this long series of formal neo-Georgian homes in a prominent position”.

 

Site Designation 

 

The site lies within the conservation area within Welwyn Garden City as designated in the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005.

 

Councillor Malcolm Cowan, Ward Member spoke against the application.

 

The Chairman informed the Committee that prior to the meeting Councillor H.Bromley had raised concerns regarding the comments that she had submitted made in connection to this application.  Councillor H.Bromley stated that these comments had not been circulated and that the full planning history of the site had not been contained in the report of Officers. 

 

Members expressed concern that the report of Officers had not included details of the agreed application for the basement development.

 

It was proposed by Councillor F.Thompson that consideration of application be deferred.  This proposal was not seconded and therefore was lost.

 

The Chairman advised that the details for planning application for the basement extension had been published on the Council’s website.  The basement extension would have no visual impact on the street scene.  The objections received were on the elevation.

 

Members raised the following concerns regarding the proposed development.

 

•        The changes would be detrimental to the symmetry of the terrace houses.

•        There would be significant overdevelopment of the site should the current proposal be granted in addition to the previous planning permissions.

•        The visual aspect of the street would be significantly affected by the proposed double storey side extension.

•        The property was set within the Estate Management Scheme (EMS).  Members had a duty to protect the street scene.  However when planning permission had been granted the EMS carried no weight.

•        There would be a loss of visual space.

•        There would be a clear break in policy.  The one representation received in support of the applications had been from a neighbour, who also wanted to extend their own property.

 

The Head of Planning, in response to a further question as to whether the EMS was directly relevant to the decision, explained that the EMS was a separate process and the Committee’s role was to consider Planning Policy and to apply it consistently.  A further opportunity to dismiss the appeal would be provided at the Estate Management Appeals Panel, if the application were refused.  The proposed development would be tested against the Council’s own policy.

 

Officers advised that the proposed development would be hidden by the existing garages, one of which belonged to the house.  The remaining garage was under the Council’s ownership.  The proposed first floor extension would be above the approved ground floor and basement extension.

 

Officers, responding to questions from Members, confirmed that the proposed development would be considered under the Estate Management Scheme, which could refuse the proposed application.

 

Members expressed the view that they were not confident that the Estate Management Scheme would be able to overturn an application once planning permission had been granted.

 

It was proposed by Councillor F.Thompson and seconded by Councillor R.Basch that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

 

•        The impact of the proposed development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Welwyn Garden City Conservation Area.

•        Despite the proposed extension being located behind the current garages the overall effect would not complement the existing dwelling and the row of terrace properties.

•        The proposals was contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act (1990) as set out in the report of Officers.

 

RESOLVED:

(11 voted for and 4 against)

 

That notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation for approval the application 6/2017/0725/HOUSE was overturned and refused for the following reasons:-

 

The proposed development does not complement or reflect the design and character of the existing dwelling and area.  It would not, overall, be subordinate in scale nor respect, preserve and maintain the character and appearance of the Welwyn Garden City conservation area.  As such the development is contrary to Policies D1 and D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005 and National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

 

REFUSED DRAWING NUMBERS

 

Plan Number	Revision Number	Details	Received Date
100/2/PL001		Existing & Proposed Elevations & Block Plan	10 April 2017
100/2/PL003		Existing Floor Plans	10 April 2017
100/2/PL002		Proposed Floor Plans	10 April 2017
		Location Plan	10 April 2017

 

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT

 

The decision has been made taking into account, where practicable and appropriate the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and material planning considerations do not justify a decision contrary to the development plan (see Officer’s report which can be viewed on the Council's website or inspected at these offices).