Agenda item

42 Avon Road, Melton Mowbray

Applicant:     Mr & Mrs A Abrames

Location:      42 Avon Road, Melton Mowbray

Proposal:     Side and front extension to form an annex and a two storey rear extension to include demolition of existing garage.

 

(a)  The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services presented the report.

 

(b)  Mr C Ward, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

·       More like a small bed and breakfast than an extension

·       5 bed home needs 3 parking spaces – insufficient space for this

·       Extension comes out 5m from the front and prevents view

·      Original extension and proposal exceeds permitted square footage the Council policy allows

·       Boundary position on plan appears to be incorrect

·       One of the datum points was taken from middle retaining wall

·      Retaining wall belongs to neighbouring property and has right of access

·       Wall already prepared for past neighbours at a cots of £750

·       Drawing comes within 8 inches of retaining wall

·      Distance between drawings and main wall of the house would be 51inches

·       Lift would cause excessive noise

·       Lack of communication with LPA

·       Extension is out of character

 

A Cllr asked if the window on the plan is the same window Mr Ward was referring to.

 

Mr Ward stated that if the building comes out past their property they would not be able see down the road.

 

A Cllr asked if it will affect the light.

 

Mr Ward stated it will affect the view but a shadow from the extension may also affect the light.

 

(c)  Mrs Abrames, the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Extension is needed due to needs of mother and care for children

·         More space and bedrooms are needed

·         Windows are in roof so neighbour will not be overlooked

·         Building lines kept back to reduce impact

·         Structural Engineer hired to help

·         Party Wall Act engaged

·         View cannot be seen through dense trees

·         Lift does not make noise

·         Moving out of home to ensure building will be done quicker

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that there is a requirement for 3 spaces for which there is ample space on the property. There are no specified limits to the scale of a property and it should be judged on impact. There will be no shadowing or lack of light as it is due north. Right of access and the Party Wall Act is not a planning condition so cannot be adjudicated by the Committee as part of this determination.

 

A Cllr stated that the development takes the whole of the site and it is dangerous. If there was a fire at the back of the house there is no way to it. Could be configured differently.

 

A Cllr stated that it is a mass development and out of character of the area. It is a fire risk as there is no access to the back.

 

A Cllr stated that the view is not a planning consideration, however the wall is very close to the neighbour’s window. Concerned about the use of the lift and how occupants will get out if there is a fire.

 

A Cllr noted there are no plans for the indoor designs therefore it is not known what the fire escapes are, and asked if fire risk comments had been received.

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that this is an element of building regulations. There is no requirement to maintain a right of access to the back of the house. The extension would not come in front of the neighbour’s window.

 

A Cllr stated that they were not happy with the design. It has a large impact on other dwellings.

 

A Cllr stated that it fills the whole front of land allocation, but so do the neighbouring properties. The neighbouring property already has issues with views and could not see a reason to refuse.

 

A Cllr stated that the design to the front could have been more sympathetic. The fire escape issues are for building regulations to deal with.

 

The Solicitor to the Council stated that the fire hazard is covered by Building Control and the development needs to be judged on overshadowing, streetscene, etc.

 

Cllr Holmes proposed to refuse the application due to over intensification of the site and the impact on streetscene. The development can be altered and designed better.

 

Cllr Faulkner seconded the proposal to refuse and stated that it is not sympathetic to the character and is against Policy D1.

 

The Chair stated that the scale of development is very large, has a negative impact on the street view, is overbearing and over-intensified, and against Policy D1.

 

A vote was taken. 7 Members voted in favour of refusal. 2 Members voted against. 1 Member abstained.

 

DETERMINATION: REFUSED for the following reason:

 

The proposal represents and over-intensive use of the site by virtue of the width, mass and forward projection of the proposed extensions, which would result in an adverse impact on the street scene, would not sympathetic to the area and would fail to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties. It would therefore be contrary to Policy D1 of the Adopted Melton Local Plan 2018.