Agenda item

Two storey rear extension and a first-floor side extension.

Officers presented the application and took Members through the photographs and plans in the Site Plans and Presentation Pack.  The position of number 2 Edenfield Close in relation to the adjoining properties on Edenfield Close and Dairy Lane was noted.

Planning permission was being sought to extend the existing three bedroomed dwelling as follows: -

·       By adding a 4 metre deep ground floor extension at the rear to run the full width of the dwelling and provide an enlarged kitchen and family area.

·       By adding a 2.5 metre deep first floor extension at the rear (above the ground floor extension) to enable internal alterations to facilitate additional bedrooms and en-suite areas.

·       By adding a third area above the garage to provide a further bedroom.

The resultant dwelling would have four bedrooms and be served by a garage and a driveway parking space.

Members were referred to the plans showing the existing elevations and proposed elevations.  It was noted that the changes at the rear would result in two gabled rooves, with the ground floor element projecting slightly further into the garden beneath the first floor extension.

Of the three sets of windows at first floor level at the rear, the two sets on the outside flank at either side would be obscure glazed  to serve en- suites, and the central set of windows would serve a bedroom.  The side windows facing on to the boundaries with number 1 Edenfield Close and number 3 Edenfield Close would also be obscure glazed.

It was noted that in a residential area there was a general presumption in favour of development provided that the relevant policy requirements were met.  Of relevance to this application was the guidance set out in the Council’s SPD High Quality Design.

In assessing the application officers had taken into account that the proposed front extension would be subservient to the host property and in keeping with the character of the area.  The extensions to the rear of the dwelling would have little public visibility and in terms of form and design had been deemed to be acceptable.

Officers had also considered the impact of the development on the residential amenity of the adjoining occupiers with respect to the guidance in the SPD. Consideration had been given to the 45 degree code, the position and nature of the relevant windows, the massing of the extensions in relation to neighbours as well as overlooking and privacy impacts on dwellings and garden spaces.

In assessing amenity officers had been mindful that there was already an element of inter visibility between properties.  Together with the fact that obscure glazing would be fitted to a number of first floor windows, officers had concluded that  the development would not materially compromise the amenity of the adjacent properties to such an extent that a refusal of the application could be justified.

Members were referred to the issues around parking provision as set out on page 11 of the agenda and the requirement of the Highway Authority that a four bedroomed property should provide three car parking spaces within the curtilage.  It was noted that the application site would provide two spaces consisting of the internal garage and one in curtilage parking space.  Officers had considered this in the context of the fact that Edenfield Close was a cul-de-sac with no parking restrictions and had concluded that the under provision of parking would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Officers took members through the information set out in the Update Report in detail and Members were asked to note the change to the stated separation distances between the proposed extension and the rear garden of number 4 Dairy Lane, the correction of the plan reference number in condition 3 and the additional neighbour comments received following the preparation of the report.  The additional comments did not add any new issues not already considered in the report.

The application was recommended for approval.

The following speakers addressed the Committee under the Council’s public speaking rules, the first two in objection and the third speaker in support.

·       Mrs Di Hunt – local resident (acting as spokesperson for other local residents)

·       Miss Barbara Street - local resident

·       Mr Jeetendar Thukral - Planning Agent.

In response to questions from Members officers clarified a number of issues, including that:-

·       The option of creating a third parking space in the curtilage had not been pursued on advice from the Highways Authority.

·       The distance from the property to the junction with Dairy Lane was estimated to be circa 17 metres.

·       Highways were prepared to accept that the internal garage counted as one parking space and its dimensions would meet the relevant standards.

·       In theory a condition could be imposed that the garage must be retained as a parking space and not put to any other use, although in practice officers would not normally propose this type of condition due to difficulties with enforcement.

·       Some of the recommended separation distances under the SPD had already been breached by the existing layout of the application site and adjoining properties.

·       Points made in public speaking about the property becoming a house of multiple occupation in the future were not relevant planning considerations.

·       With regard to highways issues, an application should only be refused where there would be a negative impact on highway safety.

·       The new windows on the side elevations would be top opening only and any issues of fire safety would be picked up by Building Control.

In debating the application Members referred to a number of matters including insufficient parking provision and whether the development could be said to be overbearing.  In considering whether the lack of in curtilage parking constituted a highway safety issue, Members noted that the road could be busy and expressed concern as to the narrowness of the cul-de-sac, proximity to the junction,  and existing on street parking.  It was considered likely that vehicles from the site would be displaced onto parking on the road. 

Other concerns were voiced over the impact of loss of privacy on existing occupiers.  There was further discussion regarding granting permission with a condition on the use of the garage for parking, although this suggestion was not seconded.

Following further discussion, a proposal was moved and seconded that planning permission be refused.

RESOLVED that

With regard to the development plan, and to all other material considerations, planning permission be REFUSED for the reason set out below:

By virtue of failing to provide sufficient in curtilage parking provision for a four bedroom dwelling, the proposal will result in the displacement of vehicles onto the highway, which is narrow at this point and close to a junction. Such displacement will create an unacceptable impact on the highway contrary to Policy 20 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No 4 (2017).