Agenda item

This application was for the erection of first floor front extension, installation of a second floor rear dormer and retrospective single storey ground floor rear extension at 30 Highgrove Meadows, Priorslee, Telford, Shropshire, TF2 9RJ

Councillor V Fletcher, Ward Member, had requested that this application be determined by the Planning Committee.

Councillor V Fletcher, spoke against the application which was in two parts with one being retrospective without consent.  This development had caused many months of misery to the neighbours and during December to August had impeded neighbour amenity of their gardens and home and whilst working from home had suffered noise pollution and disturbance which was excessive and without any consideration.  The installation of the 2^nd floor dorma windows with transparent glass looks entirely over the garden of the neighbours giving them no privacy and destroying residential amenity, the dorma had wood cladding and was not in keeping with the street scene and was a fire risk, it blocked natural light from the neighbouring bathroom window and overshadowed the footpath which was detrimental to number 28 and it caused them additional costs for electricity and lighting and had an impact on global warming.  It was considered an overdevelopment with cars needing on street parking which caused congestion due to it being a corner plot.  The extension took up three quarters of the plot and dominated the neighbouring property.

Mr E Woodhouse, member of the public, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the 2^nd storey overshadowing their property and the loss of light to the side window and sunlight from between the houses.  The dorma overshadowed the rear garden, reduced the natural sunlight and compromised their privacy and was an overdevelopment of the plot with the visual appearance no longer in character with the street.  The kitchen extension caused nine months of unnecessary disruption to neighbours with the children often confined to home due to noise, vibration and foul language it was impossible to work from home and on several occasions had to vacate due to the disturbance at all times of the day and weekends.  It was difficult for deliveries and working vehicles which caused dangerous congestion for pedestrians who had to walk off the footpath.  There was conflict when contractors vehicles blocked access, wouldn’t move their vehicles and became aggressive.  A bigger project would be more distress if it were to go ahead.

The Planning Officer informed Members that they needed to consider the impact upon the residential amenity and design.  The bathrooms was not a consideration and was given limited weight   With regard to design the planning authority has taken into consideration the permitted development rights and the proportions were in line with permitted development rights and did not require planning permission.  However, planning permission would be required for the timber cladding as it was not a material used within the existing property and it was asked that Members consider whether the material was appropriate.  The single storey extension was built in similar brick and was a retrospective application and did not impact the neighbours and was considered acceptable. The extension was not considered overdevelopment as it was contained within the site boundary.   With regard to the nuisance cause to neighbours, the applicants had agreed to accept conditions and the submission of a construction management plan for the remainder of the works which would be proportionate to the development proposed.  Officers considered that the application was compliant under BE1 and BE2.

During the debate some Member asked what would happen if the application was refused and what would happen to the single storey ground floor extension.  Other Members felt that they took a dim view of retrospective applications and felt that the applicants should have a construction management plan and asked what hours were proposed for construction.  The cladding material completed changed the frontage of the development and is not in keeping with the area.  Further concerns raised were as it was a corner plot the illegal extension could be seen from the road and the dorma extension and cladding would be visible from the highway and from the gardens of 28 and 32 Highgrove Meadows and would overlook 48, 49, 50 and 51 entirely as the land sloped down.  It would overshadow the neighbours amenity and be an eyesore and it was suggested that construction hours be limited to 9.30am to 2.30pm due to traffic becoming gridlocked.  Some Members felt there were a lack of bathrooms for bedrooms 2 and 3 within the property.

The Planning Officer explained that if refused it would be considered whether it was expedient for enforcement action.  The extension was 5cm deeper than permitted development.  The bay window to the rear created a new side extension and under regulations was considered a permitted development.  The actual depth was minimal and as a local authority it would have to be considered if it was appropriate to take enforcement action.  The hours of construction would be similar to any residential development limited from 7.30am – 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and Saturday, Sunday and Bank holidays typical hours.  Although the timber cladding was not a common feature in this part of the borough, it was a common material from properties elsewhere and there were no concerns on safety as it was a tried and tested product.  With regard to the construction management plan this was a modest extension to a domestic property with the most significant part being the single storey rear extension which had already been implemented.  There would be limited deliveries and sufficient parking spaces for 3 vehicles and as the site was at the end of an existing road with was expected there would be no highway issues.  A constructions management plan with a full range of hours would enable construction to take place quickly and efficiently without causing too many issues.  With regard to bathrooms, this was a matter for building regulations to consider and related more to HMOs than domestic properties.

Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:-

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant full planning permission subject to the conditions contained within the report (with authority to finalise any matter including conditions to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager).