Agenda item

APP/19/00625 - 62 Ferndale, Waterlooville

Proposal:       First floor rear extension; alterations to external wall and roof finish; replacement of existing windows; raised deck to the rear and front boundary fence.

 

Associated Information: Click Here

 

 

Minutes:

(This site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)

 

Proposal: First floor rear extension; alterations to external wall and roof finish; replacement of existing windows; raised deck to the rear and front boundary fence.

 

The Committee considered a written report and recommendation from the Head of Planning to grant permission.

 

The Committee received the supplementary information, circulated prior to the meeting which included:

 

(1)          the additional information requested by the Site Viewing Working Party held on 3 October 2019;

(2)          an amendment to paragraph 7.8 of the officer’s report;

 

(3)          detailed an additional condition relating to the proposed ensuite window at 1st floor level

 

The Committee received a deputation from Mr Stevens who, with reference to a previous application for a two-storey extension at 63 Ferndale, objected to the application for the following reasons:

 

1.           the proposal did not overcome the previous reasons for refusal relating to loss of light and high visual impact;

 

2.           the proposal would adversely affect the light available to 64 Ferndale (“64”) to the detriment to the quality of life to the residents of this property;

 

3.           although the street was characterised by dwellings of mixed design and type, the range of designs and types was limited. The design, appearance and mixture of materials and finishes proposed didn’t fall within any of these styles and were therefore out of keeping with the street scene;

 

4.           the proposal, if permitted would have a detrimental impact on the market value of 64;

 

5.           the flat roof extension was contrary to the Council’s requirements set for the first floor extension to 64, which had to be amended to accommodate a pitch roof.

 

In response to a question by a member of the Committee, the deputee advised that:

 

(i)           The aforementioned extension to 64 took place in 2010/11.

 

In response to questions from members of the Committee, officers:

 

(a)          clarified the position and height of the proposed privacy screen to the raised deck area;

 

(b)          advised that the access to the garden from the raised decking would be via stairs on the side of the decking facing 64. Therefore, the privacy screen would not cover the full side of the decking which overlooked 64;

 

(c)          advised that recommended condition 5 required the privacy screen to be retained at all times and the removal of this screen could lead to enforcement action. It was assumed that the neighbours would let the Council know if this condition as breached;

 

(d)          the overlap of the first- floor extension was a design choice. The officers were not aware of any structural need for this overhang;

(e)          the proposal would use the existing access to the highway. The parking provision exceeded the Council’s minimum parking requirements; and

 

(f)           explained the shadow analysis provided by the applicants as set out in Appendix G of the officer’s report

 

The Committee discussed the application in detail together with the views raised by the deputee.

 

Although some members of the Committee felt that the modern design of the proposal was acceptable, a majority of the Committee considered that whilst, in principle, it had no objection to modern designs, such a design had to be in keeping with the area. In this case, the majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the proposed appearance, bulk and design of the proposal was out of keeping with the area, which was characterised by 1950s to 60s designs.

 

The majority of the Committee also felt that the height, bulk, mass and proximity of the proposal to 64 would lead to a loss of light detrimental to the amenities of 64. It was therefore:

 

RESOLVED that application APP/19/00625 be refused for the following reasons:

 

1            the proposed extension and alterations to the existing building would result in a building that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area by reason of the proposed design and materials. The proposals would therefore conflict with Policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011, the Havant Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2011, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2            The proposed extension would, by reason of its height, mass, bulk and proximity to the boundary have an overbearing impact and result in a loss of light to No.64 Ferndale. The proposals would therefore conflict with Policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011, the Havant Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2011, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Supporting documents: