Alterations to dwelling to include a two-storey extension and attached garage.

Alterations to dwelling to include a two-storey extension and attached garage.

The Planning Officer provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda as follows:

·         A letter had been received from the agent to explain that the change of the design was intended to incorporate the latest technology by using a more sustainable material, which would give a higher insulation values in accordance with the government’s guidelines in reducing carbon emissions.  The applicant had also confirmed that he was willing to use a stain and obscure glazing to the rear of the first floor windows.

·         It was reported that an additional condition would be attached to ensure the use of obscure glazing to the specific windows.

Councillor DB Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, drew attention to the recent planning history of the site and noted that planning permission had been granted in 2008 for the construction of two storey and single storey extensions (DCCE2008/1168/F).  Councillor Wilcox considered that the design of this extant permission was satisfactory and better than the latest proposals.  He felt that the impact on visual and residential amenity were key considerations and expressed concerns about the change in the roof design of the two storey element from a single gable to two gables.  He also expressed concerns about the introduction of new windows, particularly the potential overlooking impact on the neighbouring property.  He did not consider that the new scheme would preserve or enhance the Aylestone Hill Conservation Area.  It was noted that the Conservation Manager had expressed a view that timber boarding would not impact upon the vistas from Aylestone Hill but Councillor Wilcox felt that there would be a direct impact upon the vistas from neighbouring properties and, given that the front of the building was rendered white, the timber boarding would be incongruous with the rest of the house and nearby buildings.  He considered that the application should be refused as being detrimental to the amenity of the neighbourhood, particularly the immediate neighbour, and out of keeping with the character of the existing structure.

In response to questions, the Development Control Manager advised that the extension would not change the overall footprint of the approved extension and the Planning Officer advised that the proposal would result in a reduction of the roof volume compared to the approved scheme.

A number of members supported the views of the Local Ward Member.  Some Members were concerned about the design of the windows and others felt that the external facing material would not be in keeping with the original dwelling.

The Development Control Manager drew attention to the comments of the Conservation Manager and, although noting that it was a matter of judgement, said that officers did not consider the impact of the new design elements to be so significant that the application should be refused.  Referring to concerns about overlooking, he advised that the position and shape of the proposed windows should mitigate the impact on residential amenity.  He also advised that two smaller gables might be a better architectural solution than a single, wide gable.

RESOLVED:

That

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.            The application site is located within Aylestone Hill Conservation Area in Hereford City and the local planning authority consider that the proposed development, by virtue of its design and materials, would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the main dwelling resulting in a harmful impact on the visual amenity of the locality and the conservation area and would additionally have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling.  The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policies DR1, H18 and HBA6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation given the reasons put forward by Members.]