Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Raising of roof to provide first floor and to facilitate conversion of single storey bungalow into a chalet bungalow  with additional single storey side and rear side extension, following demolition of existing rear conservatory. (as amended by plan nos. 01SC and 01SP A received on 9/11/17).

RESOLVED: That application 17/02008/1HH be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Raising of roof to provide first floor and to facilitate conversion of single storey bungalow into a chalet bungalow with additional single storey side and rear side extension, following demolition of existing rear conservatory. (as amended by plan nos. 01SC and 01SP A received on 9/11/17).

 

The Area Planning officer advised that a letter had been received from the occupier of 180 Whitehill Road who raised no objection to the increase in the height to the property at 22 Broadmead. The resident commented that many bungalows in the area were being converted into 2 storey dwellings suitable for growing families.

 

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

 

Mr Brian Foreman thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02008/1HH.

 

Mr Foreman informed Members that he lived at 24 Broadmead which was a chalet bungalow.

 

The original architects design statement stated that this was a conversion form a single storey bungalow to a double storey house. The revised application had changed little and showed a 6 bedroomed house from a 3 bedroomed bungalow.

 

This was not just using the existing loft space, but raising the roof approximately 12 feet above his property.

 

According to Wikipedia, a chalet bungalow was where the area enclosed within pitched roof contains rooms and is fully integrated into the fabric of the property.

 

The Oxford English Dictionary had a similar definition that it was a type of bungalow in the style of a chalet, specifically a bungalow with living space in the loft.

 

To try to get this passed as a chalet bungalow seemed false and misleading. It was an overdevelopment which was totally out of character with other nearby properties in Broadmead.

 

At one time a 33 percent increase seemed to be the norm, but this, with a front porch and rear kitchen extension was more like 3 times the existing bungalow.

 

Crucial errors by the architects in terminology and the important omission of a parking plan made this unacceptable.

 

The Planning Officer had compounded the errors with too many factual mistakes and a failure to include the wrap around material changes to the garage and kitchen walls, not using brick made it totally out of character. This confusing report and conclusion was therefore unreliable.

 

Mr Foreman highlighted some of the areas that he perceived as inaccurate as follows:

 

Paragraph 3.1

Broadmead was one word not two and the last paragraph stated no 22 instead of no 24.

 

Paragraph 4.1.1

The windows in the second storey were not dormer. Chambers Dictionary stated that a dormer window was a small window with a gable projecting from a sloping roof.

 

Whitehorse Lane did not exist in Hitchin and if Whitehill Road was intended to be used, this had a different colour of brick and was unrelated to the street scene in this part of Broadmead.

 

Paragraph 4.2.1

This was a two storey rather than a one and half storey house and the windows was not dormer.

 

Paragraph 4.3.2

The Planning officer accepted that the development seemed to be “at odds with the prevailing form of development, that were dwelling with single storey eaves height”.

 

This application should have been rejected on these grounds alone and was a disproportionate development.

 

Paragraph 4.3.2

The significant falls in levels was further than indicated down to no 24 and therefore the property, despite its position, would dominate no 24, matching materials were not specified in the report and the trees were deciduous.

 

The phrase “on balance” suggested that the Planning officer had doubts.

 

Paragraph 4.3.3

The owners of no 20 were both elderly and seriously ill and had asked Mr Foreman to raise their concerns, which had been done.

 

These neighbours questioned whether, with building regulations becoming stricter, the foundations were adequate for a 2 storey house and there were concerns regarding the safety of all 3 houses if this was the case.

 

Paragraph 4.3.4

It was a front not a rear extension and light was already restricted.

 

Paragrapgh4.3.5

The windows in the master bedroom would affect the privacy of his garden.

 

Paragraph 4.3.6

Broadmead was used as a parking place for those using Whitehill School, which was on a busy road.

 

Four parking spaces were needed for a 6 bedroomed house. Turning on the property and access onto the highways was difficult and a parking plan was essential

 

Mr Foreman concluded by stating that there appeared to be more than enough reasons for the Committee to consider rejecting the officer's advice including:

The overbearing impact on amenities of adjacent properties;

Out of character with the street scene;

Inappropriate scale and form in that locality;

Lack of a parking plan;

Loss of light to the living room of no 24;

Lack of privacy in neighbouring gardens;

Setting a precedent for further development in the character of Broadmead.

 

There was also the misleading terminology of the architects together with the number of errors and important omissions in the Planning officers report

 

He asked the Committee not to approve this application.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Foreman for his presentation.

 

Mr Mike Pearcy, Applicant’s Agent, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 17/02008/1HH.

 

Mr Pearcy informed Members that he was not an architect, but an engineer.

 

The property at 22 Broadmead was a chalet bungalow and the original application called the conversion a house, but it was at the request of the planning officer that this was changed.

 

The conversion was to a double storey dwelling, but it was not to make a 6 bedroomed property as the bedrooms, currently downstairs, would be moved upstairs.

 

This had been the family’s house for six years and they reserved the right to use other rooms as guest bedrooms if they wished.

 

Other properties in the area had been developed, with some of them being overdeveloped.

 

This house was built in the 1950s as a family house, but was no longer fit for purpose as a 21st century family house.

 

This was currently a bungalow made of brick and tile and these materials would be used for the extension, whereas the original application aimed to make a statement by using metal for the roof.

 

The roof height would be raised by 1.5 metres, not the 4 metres stated by Mr Foreman.

 

Mr Pearcy asked the Committee to grant the proposal as presented.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Pearcy for his presentation.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that no objection had been received from the occupiers of 20 Broadmead and that a parking plan was recommended as one of the conditions.

 

Members queried whether a light impact assessment had been carried out regarding the claim of loss of light to 24 Broadmead and asked for clarification regarding the increase in ridge height, the style of windows to be used in the second storey and whether there were any windows that should be conditioned to be obscured.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that a light impact assessment had not been carried out but that the assessment was a judgment by him as a professional planner with 30 years experience in town and country planning.

 

The windows were flat roofed dormer windows that would be inserted into the roof space.

 

There was a window on the side elevation that faced 24 Broadmead, but this was an existing window that would not be changed.

 

The height of the eaves would be raised by 1.5 metres.

 

Members discussed that other properties in the area had been extended and that this development would not look out of place in the street scene.

 

RESOLVED: That application 17/02008/1HH be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.