Agenda item

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the erection of first floor extension above existing ground floor extension.

The site was located on the east side of Elm Drive and consisted of a two storey detached dwelling.  The area was residential in character featuring properties of similar style and design.  The dwelling was sited on the inside of a bend in Elm Drive, exposing the north west flank wall to public vantage.  Where the host dwelling and neighbouring property, Number 9 Elm Drive to the south east faced in the same north east direction, Number 13 Elm Drive, by virtue of the 90 degree bend in Elm Drive, faced north west.

Members noted that the application differed from that refused within application 6/2017/1133/HOUSE in the following ways;

•      The proposed extension would not result in the angle of the rear slope of the main roof being substantially altered as previously proposed

•      The proposed roof would be set down from the existing ridgeline of the main roof of the dwelling by approximately 0.7m

•      The new roof would consist of two pitched roofs, which would be hipped back towards the main roof, with a central valley between the two roofs

•      In addition, the application did not seek permission for the front extension or single storey rear extension which have been considered acceptable under 6/2017/2110/HOUSE and 6/2017/2111/LAWP.  The extensions approved by these applications were at an advance stage of construction

Officers stated that the report contained an error, in paragraph 8, application number 6/2017/2110/HOUSE was quoted rather than 6/2017/1133/HOUSE. 6/2017/2110/HOUSE was the single storey front extension which had been approved and was currently under construction.  However, the description in the text referred to an earlier application for a single storey front extension and 2-storey rear extension which had been refused, i.e. 6/2017/1133/HOUSE.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Thorpe had objected and called-in the application stating the following reasons.

“I believe this development would deliver an overbearing loss of light on neighbouring properties and should not be permitted. I have been contacted by local residents with concerns over this, and considering similar previous applications have been refused, if this intended to be approved it should be determined by the DMC committee.”

Hatfield Town Councillor James Broach spoke against the application reiterating Hatfield Town Council’s objections:

“Members wished to support the neighbour’s objection due to a concern at the impact on number 9 Elm Drive, and a possible lack of light.  Also concern on the impact on the surrounding area.”

During the debate which ensued, Members expressed concerns regarding the cumulative nature of the proposed development and that the impact on the neighbouring properties would be overdominant and unacceptable.

Following the discussion, it was then moved by Councillor J.Boulton, seconded by Councillor S.Markiewicz that the Officer recommendation be accepted with 6 voting for and 7 against the proposed development. 

The Committee were minded to refuse the application, against the Officers recommendation as it would damage the amenity value of the local area; be overbearing to the neighbouring properties and impact on the living conditions of those properties.  On being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED:

(7 for and 6 against)

That notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation for approval the planning application be refused for the following reason:

“By virtue of the height and depth, the proposed first floor rear extension would be overbearing to the occupiers of numbers 9 and 13 Elm Drive and would have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of those properties, contrary to the requirements of Policies D1 and D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005”.