Agenda item

N/2020/0920 - Single storey rear extension and new front porch (Retrospective). 42 Gloucester Crescent


At the Chair’s invitation, the Development Manager presented the report and explained the application was for retrospective planning permission for a single storey rear extension and a single storey front porch for 42 Gloucester Crescent. There was no addendum for the application. The Development Manager described the location of the site on a prominent corner within an area of predominantly semi-detached pairs.  Previous planning permission was granted in 2017 for the 2-storey side extension, however, there has been slight deviation from the plan as French doors and a Juliette balcony has been added to the extension with another window below. Similarly, French doors and a Juliette balcony have been added to the existing property. The Development Manager explained the front porch is slightly larger than usual porches as the porch is approximately 5m wide and 1.75m deep. However, due to its siting, design and scale, officers wereof the opinion that it would not result in any adverse impact on the character of the existing dwelling and wider area or adjacent residential amenity. Condition 3, as proposed, required materials to match existing render.  The single storey rear extension is 3.1m in depth and expands across the entire width of the house, including the newly built two storey side extension. Concerns had been raised regarding the building line of the porch, the use of the games room and the scaffolding left in the rear of the property. The Development Manager explained that a rear extension with a similar impact on the neighbouring property could be constructed without the need for planning permission, , the use as a games room was acceptable for domestic use and it had been agreed that the scaffolding in the rear garden would be removed upon completion of the development.


At the Chair’s invitation, Michael Hambridge addressed the Planning Committee and expressed his concerns that the 45-degree rule had been breached and permission was required as the rear extension adjoins the side extension blocking sunlight. He also felt that the site had been overdeveloped and that additional vehicle access had not been considered as the front of the property had clearly been developed. Mr Hambridge complained that the rear extension was already overhanging and trapping his removable fencing and had already caused a land grab and damage.


The Chair then invited Councillor Davenport to address the Committee. Councillor Davenport explained that it was mutually agreed between the neighbour’s that a flat roof would be used, and this was changed to a higher pitched roof, taking the light away from Mr Hambridge’s garden. In addition, the planning application is on the boundary and no site visits have been undertaken to see the impact on the neighbouring property.


Finally, the Chair invited the applicant, Mr Kain Paley, addressed the committee. He explained that he had followed planning regulations. As far as he was aware, he was building it within the measurements required, and did not realise that if an extension meets an extension, planning permission is required. He apologised for not realising this in hindsight and agreed he would render the property as outlined in the conditions if the application was granted.


Members discussed the report.




That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

Supporting documents: