Agenda item

20 Furlong Road Gloucester GL1 4UT - 24/00223/FUL

Application for determination:

 

Single storey rear extension.

Minutes:

The Planning Development Manager presented the report which detailed an application for a single storey rear extension.

 

A local resident spoke in opposition to the application.

 

He said the application should be refused on the following grounds.

 

-       He was speaking on behalf of his mother who lived next door.

-       A loft conversion was also taking place, not just the application before the committee.

-       The loft would had a detrimental impact on light.

-       This proximity to the boundary fence would leave a narrow alleyway – this creates risks of blockages and limited access.

-       Already had to deal with instances of anti-social behaviour from the applicant.

-       He disagreed with the officer’s report comment that the proposal would not bring about an adverse level of harm to the amenity of Number 18, neither in terms of loss of light/outlook nor in terms of overbearing impacts upon the patio area.

-    There would be a lot of dust created by the application during the construction phase.

-       The application was already a four-bedroomed property. The application would add an additional two bedrooms.

 

 

Members’ Questions

 

The Planning Development Manager responded to members’ questions concerning the dormer window, a separate application for a loft conversion, whether conditions could be imposed to set hours in which construction could take place, what would happen if the applicant converted the property into an HMO, whether there would be any detrimental impact on the neighbour should the application receive consent, what would happen if the applicant did not build in accordance to the plans, whether the pedestrian access would be affected and what materials would be as follows:

 

-       There were two applications. The dormer window application benefitted from a certificate of lawful development and was not within the scope of what was in front of the committee. The dormer window had already been approved. Therefore, zero to minimal weight should be attached to it.

-       If the dwelling house wanted to become an HMO, the site would fall under a different use class, requiring permission due to the material change of use. The proposal in front of the committee was for a single-story extension. The application was also not proposing to provide additional bedrooms, suggesting that there were no plans to convert it to an HMO later.

-       It may not be reasonable to specify work times due to the small size of the application.

-       The case officer concluded that the application was acceptable in terms of amenity impact, and he concurred with this assessment.

-        If the applicant built the development not in accordance with the plans, and if there was expediency to undertake enforcement action, they would do so.

-       The pedestrian access to the side would not be altered.

-       There was a condition which stated that the materials to the proposed development must match in colour, form and texture to those of the existing building.

 

Members’ Debate

 

"Councillor Lewis stated that he agreed with the points raised by Councillor A. Chambers, noting that the proposed development would actually provide more privacy than the property previously had. He encouraged the residents to contact Environmental Health if anti-social behaviour emanated from the site.

 

Councillor Hyman stated that he did not think there were sufficient grounds to reject the application. He stated that he would vote for the officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillor Marshall stated that it was important to note that the application was not for an HMO property and that if the applicant did convert it to an HMO, they would need to submit a new application, which the neighbor could comment on. She concluded by stating that she saw no planning reasons to refuse the application.

 

Councillor A.Chambers stated that he had sympathy for the neighbours but that he saw no planning reasons for refusal and stated that he would support the officer recommendation.

 

Councillor Jones stated that he would have liked that the applicant and neighbours had reached a consensus and for it not to have had to come before Committee.

 

Councillor Lewis proposed and Councillor A.Chambers seconded the proposal to accept the officer’s recommendation.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions outlined in the officer report.

 

 

Supporting documents: