Agenda item

RESOLVED: That the application 22/01920/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager

Audio recording – 3:10:15

Thomas Howe presented the report and gave a verbal presentation, which included:

·         The proposed extension is to the right side of the property and will have a flat roof

There were no questions from Members.

The Chair invited Peter Calver to speak against the application.

Peter Calver thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

·         The objections are equally balanced for this application

·         The attaching of a flat roofed extension partly to the front side visible from the street, the character property is at odds with the original building and those surrounding it

·         It should be sympathetic to the buildings around it and in respect to the character of the neighbourhood

·         This application is designed to be part of the larger development so why wasn’t it included in the previous application.

·         The original bungalow doesn’t exist as the rear extension has been demolished and the building has been gutted

·         The applicant work started without consent

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair invited Councillor Lisa Nash to speak against the application as a Member advocate

Councillor Nash thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation which included:

·         Many residents were unaware

·         This application is contrary to the Knebworth Neighbourhood Plan

·         It will have a massive impact on the street scene as it is not in keeping with surrounding properties

·         It would have been better to have one complete plan that was sympathetic to the street scene and in line with policies.

·         The front of the property will be a lot further forward than neighbouring properties

·         It has a massive visual impact on neighbouring properties

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair invited Justin Reed to speak in favour of the application.

Justin Reed thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

·         There is no established character along the street with properties varying in size and style.

·         This proposal will be a front extension to create a uniform appearance.

·         It is a relatively small addition and won’t harm the visual impact of the site

There were no points of clarification from Members

The Chair invited Thomas Howe to respond:

·         The setback nature of the dwelling and modest scale and visual impacts means it will not have a massive impact

The following Members took part in the debate:

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor Simon Bloxham

·         Councillor Daniel Allen

·         Councillor David Levett

Points raised in the debate included:

·         We’ve just approved the visual of the building site so we can’t refuse this

·         It doesn’t say what type of tree should be planted, I think it should state it is a Beech tree as that is what was removed

·         We don’t need two trees, we already have one now that replaces the other one

·         If the tree is planted in the first condition and they build the second extension do they have to build both trees. If a second one is planted it should be placed in the back garden

·         Sometimes you can’t replace a tree with the exact same tree so having it as a native tree is better.

In response, Tom Allington advised:

·         The condition says it should be a native tree, but this can be specified

·         A replacement tree is important. These are two different applications for two different extensions. If they don’t build on of the extensions then they will only have to plant one tree

Councillor Alistair Willoughby proposed and Councillor David Levett seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That the application 22/01920/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager