Agenda item

To determine the Application.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute 19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Officers presented the application to Members and informed them that no updates had been received.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Matthew Hall, the applicants Agent.

Mr Hall advised Members that along Maple Grove there are other examples of 2 storey side extensions on the same side of the road as the proposal. He made the point that there are no objections to the proposal or concerns raised by any statutory consultees with 17 letters of support submitted all from people who reside in Maple Grove.

Mr Hall referred to the Officer’s report stating that the proposal does not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties and there are no concerns regarding overlooking. He feels there are numerous properties in Maple Grove, that have converted their front gardens, whilst still maintaining their fences for parking areas, and the proposed extension is set back from the road by 5 metres, leaving enough room of 4.8 metres for a car parking space.

Mr Hall drew Members attention to the two photographs which he had submitted and highlighted the left hand side property, which is a 2 storey extension, approved in 2015, and is 0.5 metres from the adjacent building, being built on the boundary, whereas the proposal before Members will be built 800mm back from the boundary. In the second photograph, Mr Hall highlighted to Members that it covers the full width of the plot and is closer to the footpath than the proposal before Members today.

Mr Hall advised Members that the proposal will be built 1 metre away from the neighbouring building and not 0.8 metres as it states in the Officer’s report. He stated that the applicant wishes to enlarge her property as others on the same road have already done.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney stated that when the site visit took place, Members were advised that the boundary of the extension was going to be built level with the front of the dwelling, but he can see it is now set back and queried whether the plans have been amended? He added that they were advised on site that there was insufficient space on the frontage for a vehicle to park and if the extension is to be built further back then it changes the application. Councillor Benney highlighted to Members that there are properties of a different age adjacent to each other, and therefore, questioned where the consistency is on what is acceptable for the road.  Mr Hall stated that the extension proposal has always been set back at approximately 0.9 metres.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that, on the site visit, it was felt that the proposal was not set far enough back, which would mean that if a vehicle was parked it would overhang the pavement. Mr Hall stated that on the drawings the proposal is 5 metres from the front and the back edge of the pavement to the front of the garage, a car parking space is 4.8 metres, so parking for a normal size car is achievable.

·         Officers stated that the plan was submitted as part of the application process and from the back edge of the footpath to the front of the garage is 5 metres, however it would mean that a vehicle would be right up to the garage and it is unusual to park that close to a garage door. In the parking standards set out in the Local Plan, it states that the distance from the garage door to the back of the footpath should be six metres to allow a car to park adequately clear of the footpath.

·         Councillor Sutton commented that Mr Hall had stated that the drawing that was presented was submitted with the application but on the planning portal there is an amended drawing. Mr Hall responded by saying that initially the extension was to be set further forward, however, adjustments have been made following discussions with Officers.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that if the front fencing was removed, then it would be likely that the property would have more than one vehicle, and it was also the angle a vehicle would have to manoeuvre to access the frontage and also the width.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked Mr Hall whether the applicant has considered moving their proposal to come in line with the neighbouring property? Mr Hall stated that this had been initially considered, however, it was decided to keep the extension in line with the adjoining property at the rear.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Murphy asked Officers to confirm whether the issue is that the actual plot is not big enough for an extension? Officers advised that the extension that is being considered by Members does not have adequate car parking space and the extension does not relate well from a visual perspective with the neighbouring property.

·         Councillor Sutton commented that he appreciates that the Agent has highlighted other properties that have less space than the proposal before them today, however, in his opinion, had a proposal been submitted which is level to the neighbouring property then it would have been acceptable. He added that he also has issue with regard to the internal space of the garage, in relation to the absence of the inner skin and also the length of the garage, which he understands should be 7 metres. Officers stated that   recommended dimensions are 7metres by 3 metres.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she has no issue with regard to the garage as nowadays people do not use a garage for their vehicle, however, the street scene does need to be considered and if the applicant would consider moving the extension back in line with the neighbouring property then it would be acceptable.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and decided that the application be REFUSED as per the Officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Court registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct in Planning Matters, that he is a Member of March Town Council but takes no part in Planning Matters).