Agenda item

Case number:  18/01161/HOU

Item 7: (Amended Plans and Description) Proposed construction of single storey front and side extensions and two storey rear extension to include external alterations. Alterations to existing driveway and creation of new access. Conversion of existing garage and existing loft into habitable accommodation.

Case number: 18/01161/HOU

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which referred to an amendment to Paragraph 2 of the ‘Other Matters’ section of the Report.  There was also clarification with regard to Houses of Multiple Occupation and also, following receipt of amended plans, a revised Condition 4.  The Update Sheet also set out further representation from Ward Member Councillor Bell who had been unable to attend the meeting.

During public participation, Edward Ellis and John Godbold (Badger Farm Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and both responded to the Committee’s questions thereon. 

During public participation, Councillors Warwick and Laming spoke on this item as Ward Members.

In summary, Councillor Warwick reminded the Committee of the house’s current unoccupied and neglected state as well as explaining its location in a prominent position, in a residential area of similar sized two or three bed properties.  Councillor Warwick also drew the Committee’s attention to the plans as submitted by the applicant which showed desk spaces, ensuite bathrooms and reduced ground floor living space which may suggest intentions for the house to become a student let. 

Councillor Warwick raised concern regarding the proposals which she considered were too big for the plot and that the proposed minimum three parking spaces were inadequate, especially as the integral garage (which was one of the proposed spaces) was insufficient in size for most vehicles.  This was a feature of all the garages in Badger Farm.  The two other spaces outside were too short in length. Therefore, it was likely that there would be additional parking on the already congested, narrow road as it would be difficult to safely enter and leave the proposed spaces.  Furthermore, if the dropped kerb was to be to be extended towards the corner of Harrow Road, this would be unsafe as it would be too close to the road junction.  She suggested this should be at least 10 metres away from the junction, as it would otherwise contravene highway authority requirements.

Councillor Warwick stated that the application contravened Policy CP13 as the proposed new extensions would not be subservient to the existing dwelling.  They represented up to a 80% increase in living space.  She considered the proposal would also contravene Policy DM17 as the development would be overbearing and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbours.  Furthermore she suggested the proposal was out of character with the area and contrary to Policy DM15, as well as Policies DM17 and DM18.  In conclusion, Councillor Warwick reminded the Committee that the dropped kerb required to facilitate the additional necessary off road car parking, was a separate application to Hampshire County Council as highway authority.  Therefore, she requested that a further condition be added stating that the application be subject to this being granted.

In summary, Councillor Laming reiterated a number of the points raised by Councillor Warwick and those also raised in Councillor Bell’s representation.  He highlighted that a five bedroom home was out of character in this location and also that part of the character of the estate was the gaps between dwellings.  A proposal to use render on the house was also out of character in the estate, which was generally of brick frontages.  He suggested that this application would significantly close the gap with its neighbour.  Councillor Laming expressed concern that the proposed fifth bedroom in the loft would be largely unusable due to its height and highlighted the proposed inadequate parking, including the unsuitable garage with the use of the driveway being difficult without encroaching on the pavement. 

In conclusion, Councillor Laming suggested that the use of the garage for its purpose must be conditioned otherwise it could become a further room in the future.

In response to questions, Councillor Laming suggested that at least one metre should be allowed in front of the front door otherwise the parked vehicle was likely to encroach on the pavement.

In response to questions from Members, the Council’s Highways Officer advised that the matters related to location of a dropped kerb were related to County Council guidance and not policy.  The garage size was considered to be appropriate in size for an average sized small vehicle and therefore, in summary, any  objection on highway safety grounds would be unlikely to be sustainable.  

At conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: the development by reason of its scale, mass and size  was contrary to Policies DM16 and CP13, and was therefore harmful to the character and appearance of the area and also would have an adverse impact on the neighbour, with the precise wording being delegated to the Head of Development Management to agree in consultation with the Chairman.