Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the retention of single storey side extension to rear garden outbuilding.

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the ‘retention of single storey side extension to rear garden outbuilding’.  The site comprises a two-storey semi-detached house and its front and rear gardens on the west side of Homestead Lane.  The house had been extended to the side and rear at two storeys.  The rear garden contained a pergola and outbuildings. The application at 22 Homestead Lane was retrospective so this matter would need to be taken forward by the Enforcement Team.

Representations received from the neighbour at 43 The Hyde; who objected to people standing on the flat roof which had caused a great deal of apprehension.

A comment had been received from Rt Hon G. Shapps, requesting that it be taken into account that the owner had outlined in his email the points summarised in the report.

The key issues in the determination of this appeal were the impact of the proposed development upon the amenities and values of the Garden City. The concerns with the impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties was withdrawn by officers given the planning appeal that, although was dismissed at appeal, did not consider that the building would impact detrimentally on neighbouring properties.  This was a material consideration given the similarities for assessing neighbour amenity. 

The appellant and his agent were in attendance and the agent read out the appeal letter, which was circulated to the Panel. The appellant had submitted the following evidence in support of their appeal:

·         The flat roofed side extension.

·         The extension being lower than the summerhouse and original greenhouse that it replaces.

·         The extension was over 13m from the rear windows of 41 and 43 Hyde Valley.

Overall the appellant’s supporting evidence was not considered to overcome the identified harm of the proposal and it was concluded that the proposal was contrary to Policy EM2 of the Estate Management Scheme. The Development Management Service Manager advised the Certificate of Lawfulness applied to permitted development and not the Estate Management application. 

The report noted that the extended outbuildings doubled the footprint of the original greenhouse and covered the spaces that were along each side of it.  The footprint of the amalgamated outbuilding measured 52sqm in footprint.  The structure also had a porch overhanging facing into the site and a cover over the 1m wide passage to the side abutting the garden of No 24 Homestead Lane, which extended the building across the width of the garden.  Both of these structures appeared bulky for outbuildings.  Overall the proposal constituted a disproportionately large and oversized structure and resulted in a cramped appearance to the site.

A number of points were raised by the Panel and whilst the original decision was upheld, Officers advised that only the reason related to visual impact on the wider area could be sustained and the main aim related to dominance and the overbearing impact on neighbours should be removed.  This was accepted by the Panel.

It was moved by Councillor H. Bromley, seconded by H. Bower for the first reason for refusal only

            RESOLVED

            (unanimously)

That the Panel uphold the delegated decision and dismissed the appeal relating to the first reason for refusal only associated with the size and bulk of the building.