Agenda item - 20/00012/FPH 11 COMMON RISE, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG4 0HL

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Part two storey, part single storey front extension, two storey rear extension, erection of single garage off existing access from Cooks Way following demolition of existing garage.

RESOLVED: That planning application 20/00012/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons:

Condition 1:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition 2:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the details specified in the application and supporting approved documents and plans listed above.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with details which form the basis of this grant of permission.

Condition 3:

Details of materials to be used on all external elevations and the roof of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced and the approved details shall be implemented on site.

Reason: To ensure that the development will have an acceptable appearance which does not detract from the appearance and character of the surrounding area.

Proactive statement:

Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. Discussion with the applicant to seek an acceptable solution was not necessary in this instance. The Council has therefore acted proactively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Audio Recording – 2 Hours 58 Minutes

Part two storey, part single storey front extension, two storey rear extension, erection of single garage off existing access from Cooks Way following demolition of existing garage.

Before the Development and Conservation Manager introduced the report, Councillor Kay Tart advised the Committee that she was not a member of the Committee but would be speaking as a Member Advocate on the item. She further added that she would disable her video and microphone on the completion of her presentation.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 20/00012/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Councillor David Levett raised a question regarding the report as under paragraph 4.1 – Neighbouring Notifications, 11 Common Rise had been listed as supporting the application.

In response to Councillor Levett’s enquiry, the Development and Conservation Manager responded that it was unusual for the applicant to be making representation on their planning application. He further advised that Members should take this as an error.

Councillor Kay Tart, Member Advocate, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak in support of application 20/00012/FPH, including:

· There were errors in the report at paragraph 5.2.2. The height should be amended to read 4.8 metres instead of 5.1 metres, the elevation should be amended to read 6.3 instead of 6.8 and the width should be amended to read 4.2 instead of 4.4;

· The key issues for this application were accessibility, the impact on the area and car parking provision;

· There were a number of properties already on this street that had been extended. Therefore, despite this application being unique, it was not the first of its kind;

· There were already a large number of ground floor extensions, all with varying styles;

· There was no longer consistency in house styles on the road;

· The home owners had been considerate to neighbours and properties;

· The extension would not block neighbours’ light or obstruct neighbours’ windows;

· The risk of this application setting a precedent should not be grounds for refusing planning permission;

· This application should be supported and encouraged it was unique and would enhance the character of Common Rise; and

· Design and character should not be the deciding factor for refusing planning permission as the design would not impact the street.

The following Members sought clarification from Councillor Tart’s presentation:

· Councillor Ian Mantle; and

· Councillor Daniel Allen.

In response to questions raised, Councillor Tart responded as follows:

· The half semi-detach was untouched and required modernisation; and

· Th correct measurements were obtained from the applicant.

The Chair thanked Councillor Tart for her presentation.

Councillor Tart disabled her camera and microphone.

Mr Adam Thapar thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak in support of application 20/00012/FPH, including:

· Fewer than 1 in 10 homes (approximately 7%) of the UK housing stock was disabled friendly and accessible;

· The extension focused on ensuring better accessibility throughout the ground and first floor;

· This proposal strived to improve living conditions for all people;

· The stairs were currently exceedingly steep and dangerous. To bring these to modern minimum required standards, the footprint of these would double in size;

· These stairs could not ever be modified to accept a stair lift;

· The removal of side facing windows (by way of a front extension) were in direct response to Emerging Planning Policy D3 which ensures no harm comes of living conditions to those living at the property or neighbours and the surrounds;

· Bedrooms on Common Rise typically overlooked one another from 1.5-2.5 meter distances;

· These proposed plans removed this unacceptable condition by pulling the first floor forward slightly to encourage forward facing windows to the habitable room;

· This application was led by a need for universal access into and throughout the property, and the right to privacy; and

· The property did not fall within any significant site of archaeological interest, within the conservation area or within the town centre.

The following Members sought clarification from Mr Thapar’s presentation:

· Councillor David Levett.

In response to the Member’s question, Mr Thapar responded that there was not an opportunity to raise the issue of accessibility with the Case Officer.

In response to points and questions raised, the Development and Conservation Manager responded as follows:

· Design was about context not just scale;

· Internal layout was not a planning factor;

· The focus point was the impact the proposal would have on the street scene; and

· The size errors outlined at 5.2.2 were minor discrepancies rather than errors.

Members briefly debated and sought clarification from the powerpoint presentation after which it was proposed by Councillor Levett, seconded by Councillor Prendergast and upon being put to the vote, it was: