Transcript

[ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ]

Good evening everybody. Welcome to tonight's planning committee meeting. Copies of the agenda reports and speakers list are available for members of the public on the table at the back of the room. We'll first go through some procedural items on the pink agenda before moving on to the detailed reports on planning applications before us this evening. There will be an initial officer presentation on the major or more complex applications, including those where we have registered speakers. The application of speakers will be dealt with in the order that they appear on the control sheet. Speakers should note that there is a system of traffic lights and 30 seconds before the end of your allotted time the amber light will display. Members of the committee have had their papers for over a week and have therefore had the opportunity to both study the reports on the planning applications in detail and in some cases visit sites. Some applications may be dealt with more quickly than others. This is not because members are not concerned but rather because they have considered matters and are satisfied with the planning officer's recommendations in those particular cases. Members can of course always call for an officer presentation where they feel further information is required. Just a couple of-- or one housekeeping item. Anybody with mobile phones, if they could put them on silent please or turn them off, I'd be most grateful. I'm now going to turn to the pink agenda proposed this evening and agenda item number one is apologies for absence and substitute members. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, we received apologies from Councillor Curtis Christopher Edes and he has nominated Councillor Bolakuru to attend as his substitute. And we've-- I've also been advised that Councillor Crisp will be a little late to the meeting. Thank you. Agenda item two, minutes of the meeting held on May 23rd, 2024, are members happy or so and is this a true record? Thank you. Agenda item three, declarations of interest and dispensations. Any member? Thank you. Agenda item four is items of late business. There are no items of late business, Chairman. Thank you very much. We're now going to turn to the planning applications before us this evening and the first application we're going to consider is on page 27 which is 18 Albury Avenue, Bexley Heath and that's in the hand of Mr. Williams. Thank you, Chair. The application is on 18 Albury Avenue and it's for the erection of a single-storey rear extension, a single-storey side porch, the conversion of the roof space involving alterations to the existing roof line as well as a thermal window at front and rear. The application is on the southern side of Albury Avenue and forms a pair of semi-detached single-storey bungalows. This is a view of the front of the site, aerial view, photograph of the front of the site and the next-door property, an aerial view of the rear of the site with the extended ground floor element and the next-door and neighbouring properties, a photograph of the rear of the site and the neighbouring properties, the existing ground, loft and roof plans, the existing front elevation, sides and the existing rear and then the proposed floor plans with the existing floor plans denoted in red and the proposed loft plan and dormer. The roof plan showing the dormer extension centrally, the single-storey element and the side porch and then the front dormer on the front roof slope. The front elevation showing those works, the side elevations and-- [ Inaudible Remark ] So, is that far enough back for you, Councillor? [ Inaudible Remark ] As existing or as proposed, sorry. [ Inaudible Remark ] So, the side elevations are in the new porch, the front dormer, rear dormer and then the rear inside extension from the side elevation and then obviously the adjoining element of the other side elevation. [ Pause ] On that, I just ask that out in the office report, the limited depth and the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of the amenity. [ Inaudible Remark ] This is the proposed rear elevation. [ Pause ] Apologies. So, the front elevation and given the extensions as set out in the report, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in design terms. [ Pause ] And then obviously the side elevations we've seen in the rear elevation and there's not considered to be an adverse impact to neighboring properties. Chair, thank you very much. The application is recommended for approval. Thank you, Ms. Williams. I am as are you happy you heard everything you needed to hear from officers there. Is there anything you wanted to go back over? Council Sorter? [ Inaudible Remark ] You talking to the microphone about-- thank you. The side elevation again, please. [ Inaudible Remark ] Whilst you're doing that, we have two speakers to this application this evening. The first is Mr. Marriott. If you're with us, Mr. Marriott. You have three minutes, sir, when you're ready. [ Pause ] Thank you very much for allowing me to come in here tonight. Looking at those pictures there, you actually showed one of the drawings that I did a couple of years ago that you as planning officers rejected. However, you asked to see the side elevation. The side elevation shows a height of the back addition being 3.4.3 meters which is about the planning regulation and building regulation format. It's also 4.5 meters out from the back wall. With that, I'm speaking on behalf of my family as well as my immediate neighbors who have also objected passionately. The council approving more and more of the overdevelopment. My only neighbors are whom disabled, find it convenient for the train station commuting to London hospitals, the new Elizabeth-- the Elizabeth line, the Superloop, Queen Mary's Hospital which we're grateful to Mr. Kahn for. We need to keep the bungalow stock in our area because it is going. Our road actually has no Mascara's in Varroa. These bungalows are all very, very important to us. My argument would be if you want to have a four-bedroom house, buy a four-bedroom house. Don't convert and take away the three-bedroom stock of bungalows in Bexley Heath. Their budget must be great enough to do that because I know exactly what it's going to cost if I wanted to make an application for myself. When the bungalow was first built, it was built to 75 meters squared footprint. It is now going to go up to 156 meters squared. I think that's a little bit excessive in the amount of area rebuild. I've asked about that one. In short, my objections are that from their back windows, they will be looking directly into my kitchen, my lounge, my neighbour's kitchen and I think it's an invasion of my privacy. I'd like to thank you all for listening to me. Thank you, Mr. Murray. [ Pause ] Mr. Condwell. Good evening. You also so have three minutes when you're ready. [ Pause ] Is it ready? Good evening. Firstly, I wish to emphasize that the planning officer has recommended the granting of permission for this application. The changes proposed are considered acceptable in design terms and would respect the character and appearance of both the existing dwelling and the street escape. I also wish to highlight that many properties on the street have already been extended in a similar manner to what I am proposing. As noted by the planning officer, at least 20 houses on this street have received planning permission for the front domers and six houses for hip to gable alterations over the past few years. At least four rear domers including my adjoining property is also there, all of which clearly set precedent for my application. A few objections have been raised regarding this application, all of which have been refuted by the planning officer who has recommended the granting of planning permission. I will briefly address the objections. First, loss of outlook. The planning officer has assessed the separation distance and determined that the proposed development will not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook of property behind doors. As the planning officer report states, the proposal is not considered to raise any adverse arm in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact. Second objection, overdevelopment. The planning officer does not consider the proposal to be overdevelopment and believes it would respect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the street scene. This is supported by granting of planning permission to other properties on the street in recent years, as can be seen in the photo on the screen. First photo. As can be seen in the photo on the screen, these are the works currently taking place at number six, Elbury Avenue, and number two, Elbury Avenue had this approved in 2022. Third objection is loss of privacy. The officer's report concludes that the placement of the new windows and the existing boundary treatments ensured that there will be no significant loss of privacy for the properties behind us. The application complies with existing rules and my immediate neighbors at number 16 and number 20 have not raised any objections. Notably, number 20 has previously received permission and built a similar rear dormer which overlooks Dorsey Avenue. As can be seen in the next photo on the screen, number six, Elbury Avenue, and number two, Elbury Avenue has a rear dormer in place. Refusal of similar extension. Each application is assessed on its own merits and as noted by the planning officer, the reference application was refused. As the rear dormer--

• Your three minutes are up, Mr. Caldwell. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any member?
• Thank you. Can I just pick up on a couple of points that Mr. Merritt raised there? Firstly, regarding the height of the proposed development and the distance to the backyard, I think it was the back wall he referenced, whether what officers' views were on that and just to confirm that the windows respect primacy limits regarding other properties. And then finally, as I believe is the case, is there anything in terms of planning law in terms of protecting existing bungalows? I don't believe there is a case but just officers' confirmation on that.
• So just in regards to privacy, officers consider that there wouldn't be an adverse impact in terms of the overlooking and privacy. Obviously, there's a fallback position in terms of permitted development where dwellings, bungalows, two-story buildings can add dormer extensions to their property without requiring planning permission. So obviously, there is the fallback that they can add a window to that elevation without requiring planning permission, whether that's smaller or larger, they can put a window in the roof slope. In terms of the protection of bungalows, there isn't any protection out or overtly in terms of bungalows. Obviously, we assess each application in its own merits. There's been applications where you've had bungalows set within two-story rows of properties and they've been allowed-- Sorry, I've got too much equipment to actually getting close to it. So there is a protection in terms of the character, but obviously, the fallback position is the roofs can be converted, so they end up with accommodation at loft level, but there would be protection in terms of adding additional stories if the characteristics of the street is single-story dwellings.
• Just on the height, I've been seeing how it mentions about it being four meters tall, so is that an issue?
• No, so obviously, offices are considered the height and depth of the extension and consider that to be acceptable without an adverse impact on the neighboring properties to both sides and obviously then to the rear.
• Did that cover all your points, Councillor Smith? Okay, thank you. Councillor Sandhu.
• Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If needed, I'm just thinking about the point raised by Mr. Marriott. In terms of overlooking, if needed to, can we put a condition in to say that there needs to be some trees or something, some greenery, substantial greenery at the end of the garden of this particular plot to overcome the privacy issue?
• Because of the fallback position, that's not something we can insist on. Obviously, we don't consider there to be an adverse impact. The separation distance is sufficient that it would exceed the guidelines between facing rear windows. And the fallback position would enable them to insert windows to that rear roof slope without requiring planning permission. So even if there was to be, if this application was refused, we couldn't prevent them adding some form of window within the rear roof slope under their permitted development rights.
• Thank you, happy with that. Councillor Davey.
• Thank you, Chairman. Just to clarify this overlooking thing, which I don't think got it exactly in my mind, I believe that there has to be more than 20 metres from a window to a habitable room in the neighbour's property. So can you just clarify whether that is the case? It's more than 20 metres.
• Yeah, as set out in the report, the distance would be 30 metres in excess in this instance.
• Any other member? Councillor Slaughter.
• I'd like to just look at the plans again and see the view of the rear dormer and the front dormer in relation to the neighbouring properties. Have we got something to show that? I mean, there was one plan and it was the view of the side where something appeared to come up above the ridge line. The ridge line. And also, have we got views of the subject property with the attached property alongside and also so that we can see how the dormer sort of fits in with the, I think number 16 is the unattached neighbour.
• So the front dormer meets the ridge line. So that's what you can see in the side elevation. So the pitch of the front dormer meets that ridge line. So that would be the front dormer and then the rear dormer is set slightly lower.
• At the moment, Chairman, perhaps I'm misreading the plan, but the front dormer, on the top plan, the dormer appears to become above the ridge line? No?
• It aligns with the ridge line. So the ridge line and the pitch of the front dormer are aligned. I think it's masked on the top one by the chimney being displayed.
• Surely one of the dormers seems to have come two-thirds of the way down the chimney.
• Sorry, could you repeat that, Councillor Slaughter?
• On this, taking the two-thirds away, it seems to be the two-thirds down the chimney. So it's the two-thirds of the way down the chimney?
• Yes, it's the two-thirds down the chimney.
• On this, taking the top plan, to the right of the chimney, there is a view of a dormer. Is there not?
• Yeah, and I think if you followed the pitch of the roof slope up, that would meet the top of the front dormer, as shown on the right elevation, where the pitch of the roof meets the pitch of the dormer on their line.
• Councillor Ward-Wilson.
• Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments from me before I actually come to the same side elevation drawing, if that's okay. So just that it's described as not being in a conservation area, et cetera, which I accept, and this is not a planning consideration, but it's a comment. Whilst that is the case, this is a much-loved road locally. It's one of the so-called bungalow roads. So they are, I know that they are quite cherished, but it's not a planning consideration. Also pick up on Councillor Smith's question about bungalows and extending them, and I do think we are losing them at quite a pace. But again, it's not a planning consideration. So as far as the overlooking is concerned that Mr. Marriott expressed, is it possible to have a condition for obscure glass towards the back? And then I've got a question about the side elevation. Thank you.
• I think any conditions of the rear facing windows would be overly onerous, given the fallback position is that they can insert windows in a door mile within that roof scope without needing any planning permission.
• Thank you. I do appreciate that. It's just I do know of one development under permitted development rights, and I did request if there could be obscure glass. It didn't come to planning. And the developer, out of a gesture of goodwill, actually did that. So I'm just gonna put that into this space tonight. Coming to then this side elevation, I'm struggling to understand it in the same or similar vein to my colleague, Councillor Slaughter. So I do know the roads very well, and if I can take you in your mind perhaps to number 36, which is the end of the road on the, as you look at the houses, it's the left-hand side. And it has an extension, and it's just got a pitch at the side for the roof. And it looks lovely. What I seem to see in this one is now this side elevation, which wasn't on the website, so you've got that nice pitch, but you've also got some, I don't mean to be rude to the developer, but bulky boxes around the side. And I can only put, you know, I'm a lay person. I can put it that way. And I just wondered about the character of the road, which I know is a planning consideration. I wonder if you could speak to that for us, please. Thank you.
• As set out in the report, I think officers have considered the character of this road, and I think this road has a number of examples of front dormer extensions, such that they're a characteristic of the street scenes. Front dormers aren't normally something, they're not permitted developments. There's no fallback for a front dormer. But where the characteristic of the surrounding road allows that, then they can be achieved. If there was no other examples of front dormer extensions, it's not something we would readily permit. The example within Albury Avenue is there is a number of front dormer extensions already in existence, such as a characteristic. And I think that's the same with the hip to gable conversion. I think one of the photographs showed that there's a number of characteristic properties where that has been achieved. So I don't think there's any adverse impact on the character of the street scene from the extensions that are proposed.
• Can I come back, Chairman? Thank you. Thank you for that. So I understand about the front dormer, and I completely appreciate that. I know there's lots of them. But I can't see anything in that particular road that has what appears to me in the drawings. So this one, so from the front of the house, the extension to the roof looks just like a box on the side. You can't really appreciate that. That goes to a pitch, doesn't it? So if you would look at it from the side, that's a pitch.
• So what you're saying is that you don't consider the zinc in keeping with similar properties in the road?
• Unless I'm not understanding the drawings, I don't think they're, they're not very clear to me.
• So as existing, the roof is hipped, and obviously they're proposing to gable the roof and add space above so they are creating a hip-to-gable extension. Officers consider that that's acceptable in terms of the characteristics of the street scene, as there are other examples within the road. There's also a fallback position under permitted development where they could hip-to-gable the roof without requiring planning permission, as well as adding a dormer extension to the property to the rear of what we've previously discussed. So we have to consider it in light of what they could do without needing permission, and in this instance, with the front dormer extension and the roof conversion, it's considered that it wouldn't be out of character because of the other examples and the extensions have already been carried out within that street scene.
• Thank you, Mr. Williams.
• Councillor Dumas.
• Thank you, Chairman. A question for the planners, really, just for clarification purposes. Can you just confirm, I think you already have in somewhere along the line, that similar, not exactly the same applications, have been given and approved in previous years along the same road? Can you just confirm that this is one of very similar, if not exactly the same?
• So there's a number of examples of extensions of a similar nature within the street scene. Some of those have been approved, some of them would have been carried out without requiring planning permission.
• Thank you.
• Councillor Davey.
• Thank you, Chairman. Looking at the proposed front elevation, it seems in many ways a far better design than many of the other bungalows in that area, so I'm quite happy with that. Can you tell me what Inch Ridge M stands for? Is that the internal height of the, inside the property? I'm assuming it is, but just to clarify that.
• Sorry, what does what stand for?
• Inch Ridge.
• That would be the internal ridge measurement, so that would be the top of the roof. And then there's a 30 centimetre insulation type.
• You happy with that, Councillor Davey?
• No, not yet.
• Councillor Sloot.
• Yeah, I was still hoping to see the context with the adjacent two properties showing the proposed dormers and how they are going to fit in with the style of the properties on either side.
• So this is the aerial view of 18 and 20. So obviously the next door property has a front door mark, it hasn't been converted through a hip to gable extension. I don't have a side by side drawing, I'm afraid they've only submitted the plans for the property, and obviously that's considered sufficient to enable us to make a decision.
• Does that help, Councillor Slaughter? (audio cuts out)
• I still, like Councillor Ward-Wilson, I'm having difficulties in reading the side elevation where the dormer still appears to be above the ridge line. I'm not sure if Miss Williams can add anything to what he's already said, but.
• So I think obviously looking at an example from across the street, the two front dormers, I think it's gonna be very similar to the examples here where the pitch of the front dormer aligns with the ridge. So from one elevation you can see the pitch aligning with the ridge, from the other elevation the chimney masks, that you can't see beyond the chimney. So in this elevation obviously the pitch of the front dormer where the mouse is aligns with the ridge of the roof, and then as we move to the side on this elevation the pitch of the ridge aligns with the pitch of the front dormer, so it's not higher than the existing roof and it aligns. And then on this elevation the chimney masks the actual height of the ridge, but if you follow the slopes up they would meet to a point where the front dormer ridge height comes across.
• Does that help? Thank you. Any other member? If not members. (audio cuts out) 33. Do I have a proposal and seconder please? Thank you. All those members in favor of approval. Those against, well I don't think they're on, are they? That recommendation has been approved. (audio cuts out) We're now going on to page 41. Thank you very much. Thank you, we appreciate your email. Which is 20 Christchurch Road, sync up. And that again is in the hands of Mr. Williams.
• Thank you, Chair. The application is for a single-story side extension following the demolition of the existing garage, formation of a vehicle access, and alterations to the front boundary enclosure, incorporating walls, piers, and railings. An aerial view of the existing property, which is a detached property on the eastern side of Christchurch Road, sync up, and is located within the Christchurch Conservation Area. This is prior to the redevelopment. A photo of the existing frontage showing the redevelopment previously approved. The existing block plan with the existing garage noted in this location. The existing floor plans and roof plans. The existing elevations. The proposed block plan showing the new side extension to this position and the front boundary. The proposed ground and roof plans. Due to the site of the proposed extension within the front and rear building lines of the dwelling, the pitch roof, and the limited height, the proposal is not considered to result in an adverse impact to the adjoining occupiers. The proposed elevation. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in design terms and is considered to respect the appearance of the existing dwelling, as well as the surrounding conservation area. And no objections were raised by the council's conservation area. Chair, as set out within the officer's report, the recommendation is for approval.
• Thank you, Mr. Williams. Members, again, we have two speakers to this application. The first is Mr. Beagley. Thank you, Mr. Beagley. You have three minutes, sir, when you're ready.
• For ease of reference, I'd like to follow the headings in the report that the building has been completed and follow the headings in the report that the planning office prepared and why I disagree with some of their comments. Whilst I also object to the front boundary alterations, I'm gonna focus on the proposed garage side extension. In the proposal section, the original application agreed a like-for-like replacement to the garage. If you see the existing under construction picture showing the size and the position of the old garage. This was below the height of our boundary fence could not be seen from our garden. The proposal is now three meters high and extends past that boundary wall. Planning guidelines state that we do actually have a right to a good outlook and this proposal will deny us that. On the actual garage roof, there are proposing six deluxe windows which will look straight up at our front bedroom en suite window and landing window. See picture taken from our bedroom en suite window. The report states that the proposed garage and access are substandard as a garage and the applicants have advised that actually they'll be using this for storage. So why does it need a pitched roof, six deluxe roof windows, fancy French doors at the rear? This is obviously going to be used as habitable space and I think everybody's trying to pull the wall over all our eyes. Under the representation section, a large number of neighboring addresses are also objecting which shows the scale of resentment to this proposal and not just this one but the previous four years worth of proposals. Both either side of this property, opposite and behind and also the Christchurch Area Residence Association have also sent two emails objecting both the front boundary and the garage. The relevant planning history is also very key. As I say, this has been going on for four years with application after application with addition after addition to the original sanctioned application in 2020. They are trying to circumvent the planning process and overdeveloped this modest plot. You will see from the overhead plans of the site how much larger the property already is and in comparison to the properties on either side and behind. In the assessment, impact on the character and appearance, the report states the garage will be appropriate to a much enlarged dwelling. This may well be the case but of course the original modest plot cannot be enlarged and they are just cramming in additional applications to fill an existing small plot. The report says the garage will be set back at the front by a metre and not intrude on the street scene. This might be the case but by obeying a further back it then protrudes a metre past our real rear building line, kitchen window and back door. The report states that we are an unattached property to the south, the proposal will make us as attached as they are building right alongside our boundary. This will have an impact as a light for light was originally sanctioned is now longer and higher. We're also angled inwards at number 20 to number 20 and the impact is exacerbated. So in conclusion, this is not light for light.
• Your three minutes is up, sir. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.
• Thank you.
• Mr. Kadukuri. You still have three minutes as well when you're ready.
• Good evening. My name is Vijay Kadukuri and I'm here to advocate my application passionately and allow me to first elucidate the design of the proposed works and then address the objections raised against it. The proposed garage is designed to be harmonious with the main building. It's deliberately set back one metre to ensure minimal impact on the street scene. The garage roof at 2.3 metres along the boundary blends seamlessly with the main building and surroundings. The considerable gap between the side boundaries of number 20 Christchurch Road and 18 ensures that the proposed garage remains insignificant to any of number 18's habitable rooms, windows, or their rare garden. All materials used on the roof pitch will match the main property. As for the front wall, precedent on Christchurch Road showcases larger, more imposing, many adorned with front gates. The proposed design with the two front entrances was necessary for us as otherwise it would severely inconvenience parking arrangements owing to the fact that the last vehicle parked should move out first and that the EV charging would not be practical for one car. The proposed front wall, the piers, and the railings are not only in keeping with the local character but are intended to actually elevate the heritage asset within the beautiful conservation area. The proposed design also complies with all relevant policies including those of the highway authority and the conservation area guidelines as confirmed by the absence of objections from these authorities. Addressing neighbor objections, objections raised mainly fall into six main categories. One was overdevelopment. It is perplexing how replacing my garage with an existing can be perceived as overdevelopment. The new garage simply respects the design and the integrity of the main property. Harm to character. The modest variations in the dimensions of the proposed garage and front wall enhance rather than harm the street's character. The third objection was design quality. The claim of poor design is really subjective and unjustified. Our design contributes positively to the street scene and optimizes space usage. Loss of light, privacy, and view. These objections are vague, they are generic, and imprecise as outlined. The design ensures no impact on those neighboring properties. In closing, I urge the committee to evaluate this application by recognizing the objections for what they are and understanding the burden it places on the residents of this dwelling. Thank you for your time and consideration.
• Thank you very much.
• Thank you, Chairman. Can I have some clarification about these feel like windows on the top, whether you can actually see out of them to the adjacent property? I mean, normally, if they're on the roof, you can't. But it's not clear to me whether you can actually see the adjacent property by looking through them from what was the garage. That's the first thing. And the other thing is that as far as the front boundary is concerned, I think it seems to be very nicely done in keeping with the conservation area, even though it's just fractionally over the meter. So I'm not going to have a problem with that, but just a bit of clarification about exactly what you will be able to see through these feel like windows.
• Due to their position and their height, they would only allow views upwards towards the sky.
• Are you happy with that answer, Councillor Davey?
• That's what I was hoping for.
• Councillor Sandhu.
• Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just following on that v-lux window point again. So as Mr. Beagle was saying about looking, they could look into his bathroom. Would I be right in thinking that there's actually more chance of Mr. Beagle looking down into whatever is in that room where the v-lux windows are? And then I've got another question.
• Yeah, obviously offices have considered the application. The views would be upwards. Obviously, they are side facing. And obviously, there is the possibility of looking up. But obviously, there wouldn't be a view downwards or an intrusive downwards view.
• Okay, thank you. And then the second point is it was mentioned that they're building up to the boundary. Could you just clarify what distance there is, if any, left between the boundaries of 18 and 20? 'Cause on that plan, it looks pretty close there. Thank you.
• I don't have the exact figures to hand. It's very close to the boundary along the plans showing it to be almost hard up to the boundary without encroaching across.
• Just final point. On that note then, because I would imagine that roof that we're talking about with the v-lux is obviously gonna have gutters and things like that. Could you just confirm that all of that, any gutters and any water fall from the new extension will be within the boundary of the application site, please?
• The shown here that there's a slight parapet wall from my reckoning. So the drainage would have to be internal to the site and it couldn't encroach over or drain onto the next door neighboring site.
• Thank you. Councilor Smith.
• Thank you very much. I just wanted to, officers, I wondered if you could clarify the previous refusal and what's changed regarding the proposed size of the garage and the walls and railings. I understand that, quite clear to see that wall and railings are now smaller, so perhaps they're now considered acceptable in comparison to the previous application, which was refused. But the garages, other than being set back, it seems it's not too much change. So if the office could provide some commentary on that, I would appreciate it.
• I think it's set out on page 44 in terms of the dimensions, which as you note, are very similar throughout. It's the siting in terms of the immunity harm and the siting now has been moved forward and I think the setback from the existing garage is 7.44, as proposed, sorry, as refused, it was also 7.44. So it was set well beyond the front elevation of this property and was located much in the same location as the existing garage. And now the garage side extension has been shifted forward to address the harm that was previously found and refused.
• Happy with that, okay. Councillor De Moesch.
• Thank you, Chairman. Now, when you look at this, the drawing there currently, it's true what you said that the actual proposed garage is almost terraced onto the existing building. So there is an actual fact, I've seen it from outside, but there is, I mean, it is part of my ward, it's in the conservation area. So it's pretty much butted on. Now, Councillor Smith has said that what's changed, well, I'll tell you what's changed is the height from the existing garage because we talked about like for like, that is not like for like. We're talking about almost a metre difference in the height of the proposed garage. Now, I wouldn't have objected if it was a flat roof. If it was a flat roof, it'd be absolutely fine. And then I'm sure the neighbours wouldn't object neither because it would, in actual fact, not be that much visible. But I can't understand why we would want to have Velux, six Velux windows in a garage, that you're gonna put a car in or store in there. And if you're talking about and you're saying it's not visible to the next door neighbours, well, I suggest it is because if a Velux window will be at 45 degrees normally, you can see very much everything from inside the garage or whatever it's gonna be going forward. So it is not like for like. Let's get that into perspective. So in terms of when it was refused, it was refused at 2.98 metres high and now it's 3.06 metres high. So how can that be refused? I know it's set back a bit, but in terms of height, this one's higher and you are saying that this is acceptable. Whereas a few months ago, you said 2.98 wasn't acceptable. I don't have a problem with the front area, et cetera. That's absolutely fine. But it's the garage that I think Mr. Beagley's got a problem with. So we have to understand that by accepting this, it is mass, it is too big for a garage. As I said, a flat roof would be absolutely fine. That these people have to live next door and see it on a daily basis. When they look out their windows, it's a pitched roof. I've never seen a pitched roof garage in that kind of shape with Velux windows. So I think I have to question the fact that is it a garage or isn't it a garage? I don't know. So for me, when you say it's light for light, it really isn't because there's almost a metre in height difference. So flat roof, yes, existing as it was previously, but a pitched roof, not for me. Thank you.
• Before Mr. Williams answers that, I may have misheard, I don't know if you'll tell me if I did mention something about whether or not a car will go in there, but it's just a comment that you couldn't get a car in the previous one. And this one, this garage is even narrower than the one that went before. So certainly you couldn't get a car in there. That's all I wanted to make that comment.
• Mr. Chairman, if I can come back, please. We're not talking about the width or anything else. I haven't mentioned that. All I'm saying, unless a thin, really tall vehicle is gonna go in the garage, there is absolutely no need to have it at that height. That's what I'm saying.
• Let Mr. Williams answer, and we'll see what we get with it, shall we?
• In terms of the previous refusal, it was the sighting which was the harmful element of the proposal. So the proposal, due to its sighting along the boundary and projecting an additional, I think it was 7.44 metres backwards of where this one is sighted, that was the harm in relation to the height. So the height itself wasn't necessarily harmful, but it was the sighting of the garage at the rear elevation of the property, rather than now it's sighted towards the front, so the height isn't necessarily harmful because of the sighting of that garage.
• Chairman, can I just get back? The previous refusal, was it a pitched roof, was it a flat roof?
• I think I've got the refused drawings after.
• So the previous had a bonnet roof to the front and the rear, and was a flat roof centrally.
• Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I rest my case. I mean, it wasn't harmful previously because it didn't have a pitched roof. And now it's got a pitched roof, so it is harmful.
• The design is considered acceptable. The Conservation Area Office has assessed the design as submitted, obviously there's a difference between a flat roof and the pitched roof. The offices consider the design to be acceptable and no harm arising from a pitched roof over and above the flat roof that was previously considered.
• Differing opinions here. Council Wall-Wilson.
• Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two questions for me. One is about side access. So we've got the garage butting up against the boundary, but on the other side, it seems to have some sort of access. Is that enough to get sort of wheelie bins and things through it? That's my first question. And my second question is regarding something that Mr. Beagley said about overdevelopment of the site. So we are just looking at, well, not light for light, but a replacement garage floor and the walls. But considering that this was originally a bungalow, I'm assuming, I'm assuming I've got this correct. It was a bungalow to start with. And then you've got a substantial house there instead. That's all passed, that's all done, that's all approved. I'm not calling that into question. But what I am saying is that I can understand the concern of the neighbors that, okay, that was approved, there's the house, now there's going to be a garage. Will there be anything next? So my question is, is this the end of what would be permissible under planning application, or could this property become even bigger? So one's about side access, and one's about where's this going. Thank you.
• In terms of the side access, they don't need to retain side access. So I think the width is sufficient looking at the plan, so I think they'll be able to get their wheelie bins. Obviously, the wheelie bins in other locations within the borough will be stored in the front garden, and there won't be a need to take them. And indeed, in terraced properties, there isn't access to the rear or to the side. In terms of what could come in the future, we can't predict what will come. Obviously, we have assessed the application as submitted, and we don't consider the application in front of us to be an overdevelopment or too much for the site. If further applications came forward, obviously the property has been significantly extended, as you allude to. There isn't many obvious elements where they could extend further without causing further harm, but we would need to assess any application that came forward. And in terms of what they have done, they've obviously extended from a bungo to a two-story property. That's been approved, as you know. We're now considering a side extension, which offices consider to be acceptable in terms of design, impact on amenity, and wouldn't be an overdevelopment of the site. Each application, if and when anything further does come forward, will be assessed by officers in the same way, and there are limited spaces now for them to fill with development on the site.
• Thank you, Mr. Williams. Councillor Davey.
• Thank you, Chairman. Just to continue with that, as this is a large building on a small plot, well, it is now, are we in a position to remove permitted development rights?
• I'm not sure that there's many permitted development rights that they would enable them to, but I think we'd have to have harm resulting from this application as to why we would remove other permitted development rights which wouldn't be relevant to this application. There's obviously very limited space to the other side of the property. They couldn't extend beyond the side walls. There's obviously a rear extension already approved. And I think that anything above and beyond would be overly onerous, and it would capture elements which wouldn't be relevant to the application in front of us tonight.
• I don't know is the answer.
• Councillor De Mahish, yes.
• Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just coming back to what Mr. Beagle said, I should have said it previously, I didn't, is why would we want two French doors opening into the garden in a garage? Is that normal? I don't know. Perhaps someone can tell me. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm just asking the question that if it's gonna be used for car storage, as you said, it might be a bit narrow, et cetera, not unless you buy a Fiat 500 or something. But, you know, I'm just asking the question, why have we got Velux windows, six Velux windows, and it looks like a pair of French doors?
• Well, I don't think we can make an issue out of this to be quite honest, Councillor De Mahish. We have what we have in front of us for you to make up your minds on. The applicant felt it appropriate, that's what he wanted. That's gone before officers, and officers have given their views. End of story. Any other member? If not members, the application we have before us is on, the recommendation is on page 52. Do I have a proposal in second? Members in favor of approval? All those against?
• Two. - Two. Thank you.
• I am.
• Thank you, Chair. The application is for the erection of a single-story rear and side extension, including alterations to the existing roof slope and rear dormer extensions, and members will note the addendum for this item. The application site is a detached property on the northern side of Sandhurst Road Sip Cup, and is located again within the Christchurch Conservation Area. An aerial view of the existing property. The photos of the front is with the creamed front. An aerial view of the rear. And photos of the rear looking towards 18 Sandhurst. And the rear looking towards 22. The existing ground and first floor plans. The roof plan showing the front to rear ridgeline to the right. And the multi-pitched M-shaped roof comprising the two ridges to the left, pardon me. And then the existing front and rear elevations. And the existing side elevations. This is the proposed ground floor plan showing the single-story side rear extension, which due to the depth and separation, the proposal is considered to not result in adverse harm to the neighboring properties. The unchanged first floor plans. The loft plan. And a roof plan showing the crown roof element replacing the M-shaped multi-pitched roof to the left-hand side with the main ridge remaining. The side elevations. The front elevation. And the rear elevation. And due to the design, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and would respect the appearance of the existing dwelling. And the surrounding conservation area and no objections were raised by the council's conservation officer. Chair, as set out in the office of report, the application is recommended for approval.
• Thank you, Mr. Williams. Members, this is straight overdue on this one. Councilor Daly.
• Yeah, is there a diagram showing where the new extension is in relation to the adjacent properties? It's not entirely clear. So the bits to the left and the right are the adjacent properties going further back in towards the garden than this proposed one. Is that, am I right in thinking that?
• So the property to the left is shown to, as existing, slightly extend beyond the rear elevation of number 20, and then the proposed element to this side would project slightly beyond the rear neighbor here. And then the property to this side is shown to be set away and project deeper, at its deepest element, but not at its.
• You happy with that, Councilor Daly?
• Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is regarding one of the representations of the objections, I should say. Someone says on there that it would create a terracing effect. Just looking at this plan that's on there now, would I be right in thinking that there's obviously a gap on the right between the two properties and there is a gap on the left, but albeit somewhat less? Is that right, because on the images that you showed earlier, it looks quite obvious that it's not anything like a terrace on the photos.
• So I think at first floor level, there's separation between the properties, but I think the properties generally extend very, very close to the boundary at ground floor level across the frontage, and I think that's replicated on the floor plans, which shows there's a minimal gap at ground floor level existing, and to the left-hand side, I think that's built up hard to the boundary at ground floor level. At first floor level, you have the separation created to prevent that terracing effect.
• Thank you. Any other member? Nobody? In that case, members, I would like a proposal. All those members in favor of approval? Aye. All those against? Nothing. Thank you. Page 35, 32 Northcote Road, Sidcup. Mr. Williams, when you're ready.
• Chair, the application is for a single-story rear extension following demolition of the existing conservatory, lean two. Property is a two-story terraced property without rigor on the western side of Northcote Road, an aerial view of the site, an aerial view of the front, and a photo of the frontage, an aerial view of the rear, and we have this property here. A photo of the rear, showing the existing shed to be removed, and the existing lean-to development to the left-hand side. The existing and proposed floor plans, showing the extension beyond the outrigger to this element here, and then the replacement and slight extension beyond the replacement conservatory. The roof plan and first floor plan showing the single-story extension. The existing and proposed rear elevation. Due to the limited depth and existing extensions and relationships and the separation, the proposal is considered to not result in adverse harm, and due to the property being, property, due to the extensions being located to the rear, it's not considered to be an adverse impact in design in the property or the surrounding area. Chair, as set out in the office's report, the application is recommended for approval.
• Thank you, Mr. Williams. Any member wish to speak to this application? Must be somebody, surely. If not, then I will ask for a proposer and seconder to the recommendation we had before us this evening. Councillor Davey, Councillor Salter, thank you. All those in favor of approval, please. Those against. That recommendation has been approved. It's far too early to stop, isn't it? I do have a sense of deja vu sitting here, but it won't be the same next time. First of all, just next meeting. Thank you, everybody. [BLANK_AUDIO]