Agenda item

Under Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application emphasising that amended plans had taken into account the concerns raised and a member of the public spoke against highlighting the appeal decision and the land widths which the Inspector had raised and that the application should be within design policies.

Batchworth Community Council raised concern and did not feel the amendments changed the opinions raised by the Inspector and overcome the concerns raised.  They would like the applicant to seek a better solution.

Members raised the following points:

The depth of the flanks, the crown roof, design, were contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12, and should be considered and did not feel the reasons for refusal had been overcome.

The reason for refusal last time was not part of the Appeal Inspector decision.

The design is not good, but it is not in a Conservation Area and it makes it difficult to refuse.  Amendments had been made and they could not see a reason for refusal on design.

Streetscene was still a key issue and the impact it would have, its bulk and the lack of significant articulation, along with the crown roof and multiple roof lights.

Councillor Debbie Morris moved refusal, seconded by Councillor David Raw based on the impact on the streetscene, and excessive bulk and massing of the resultant dwelling.  Other reasons for refusal raised for consideration were the effect on the streetscene, excessive bulk/dominance, massing, impact on character, roof lights, crown roof and the glazing had not been reduced.

The Planning Officer advised that following the motion to propose to refuse planning permission the details of the refusal were on the grounds of unacceptable impact of the extensions on the character of the streetscene resulting from the excessive bulk and massing of the resultant dwelling.  The exact wording to be circulated to members.  Offices considered the articulation, rooflights and glazing had been addressed.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be REFUSED (contrary to officer’s recommendation) on grounds of an unacceptable impact of the extensions on the character of the streetscene resulting from the excessive bulk and massing of the resultant dwelling.  The exact reason for refusal to be circulated to members.

Wording of Reason for Refusal:

By virtue of the overall scale of the proposed extensions and overall increase in the depth of the flanks, which lack any significant levels of articulation to alleviate their unduly rectilinear appearance, the resultant dwelling would have an overall bulk and massing which would appear as an unduly prominent and visually obtrusive form of development to the detriment of the character of the streetscene. The design of the glazing within the front elevation would also exacerbate the prominence of the extensions by virtue of its jarring relationship with the existing bay feature. The proposed development would result in the host dwelling appearing unduly prominent within the site and street scene and would be contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies document (adopted July 2013).