Agenda item

R/2024/0248/FF Part two storey/part single storey extension to side and rear; two storey front extension including alterations to roof and extension to dormer at rear 24 Mossdale Grove Guisborough

Minutes:

Councillor Curr declared an interest in the following application and took no part in the discussion nor voted theron.

 

The Officer summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated.

 

Members sought clarification around the following matters;

 

·       Had there been any discussion regarding the position of the gable to match with the neighbouring property?

·       Can you confirm that the proposed extension at the front of the property will come no further forward than the existing.

 

An objector present made the following comments:-

 

·       The proposal was not in keeping with the character or size of adjacent properties;

·       Disagree with the Planning Officers report which stated that the scale and design were acceptable;

·       There were no other flat front facing extensions nor integrated garages;

·       In respect of design in residential areas the STD guidelines advised that residential extensions should protect, enhance or contribute to the character. It should also respect the scale, massing and separation distances;

·       External design should reflect the local context;

 

A representative from the Guisborough Town Council was present at the meeting and made the following comments:-

 

·       The Town Council were a statutory consultee and due weight should be given to their comments;

·       Planning was not an exact science but the interpretation of policy to form a view;

·       Any extension should complement the original build;

·       The proposed extension does not respect the original build nor does it fit in with the surrounding area;

·       The size and shape of any extension should be compatible and subordinate to the property;

·       Good design should mean that it should not be obvious which was the original build and which was the extension, in this case, this did not apply;

·       The reference to Askew Drive was disingenuous and therefore irrelevant.

·       Policy SD4 was relevant together with the supporting documents and in the Town Council’s view the size, scale and massing were detrimental to the street scene and did not respect the original building.

 

The applicant present made the following comments:-

 

·       The parking provision had been extended with the widening of the driveway;

·       The extension does not sit forward of the original dwelling;

·       The materials would match the original dwelling;

·       The area had a mix of dwellings with many extended and altered;

·       There was no straight building line;

·       The property sits back from the neighbouring property;

·       The neighbouring property was extended;

·       There would be no windows in the side elevation;

·       No 25 had added a large dormer;

·       The proposed rear extension was half a metre less than the adjacent extension;

·       The fence would be replaced;

·       Alterations had been made to take the extension away from the boundary;

·       Careful consideration had been taken when drawing up the application;

·       The proposal was ideal for this location;

 

Members debated the application and made the following comment:

 

·       There was an element of over development. Could we ask the applicant to consider a re-design so that the proposal was more in keeping with other properties in the area;

·       The house was 50 years old and cannot see any problem in modernising it;

·       The property was within development limits;

·       There were no highway issues due to the two extra parking spaces being provided;

·       The area had a variety of design and extensions;

·       Properties very often need to be modernised;

·       The proposal would not have a negative impact.

 

Following the debate members resolved to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date of this permission.

         

REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

         

- Location plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 11/04/2024

         

- Site plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 02/05/2024

         

-Proposed floor plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 02/05/2024

         

- Proposed elevations AS AMEDNDED 11.07.2024 received by the Local Planning Authority on 11.07.2024

         

REASON: To accord with the terms of the planning application.

 

3.The external elevations of the extension(s) hereby approved shall be built in materials to match in type, style and colour the external elevations of the existing dwelling/building.

         

REASON: To ensure that the appearance of the development matches the existing property and would respect the site and the surroundings in accordance with policy SD4 of the Local Plan.

         

4.Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the existing driveway shall be extended to provide an additional parking space in accordance with the proposed site plan received on the 2nd May 2024. The additional parking space shall be constructed from porous/permeable materials or provision made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwelling house. The approved car parking layout shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

           

REASON: To provide the requisite in curtilage car parking provision for a 4-bed property, in the interests of highway safety and to prevent increase risk of flooding from surface water run-off in accordance with Local Plan Policy SD4.

 

 

Supporting documents: