Issue - meetings
Planning Application No. CB/18/00083/FULL (Houghton Conquest & Haynes)
Address: 53 Northwood End Road, Haynes, Bedford, MK45 3QB
Proposed single storey front and rear extension with a double storey side extension with integral garage. Demolish existing garage and shed.
Applicant: Mr Bennett
The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/00083/FULL for a proposed single storey front and rear extension with a double storey side extension with integral garage and the demolition of the existing garage and shed at 53 Northwood End Road, Haynes, Bedford, MK45 3QB.
In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to an additional/amended condition as set out in the Late Sheet.
In advance of consideration the Committee received a representation from Haynes Parish Council under the public participation scheme.
A Member sought clarification from the Parish Council representative regarding the latter’s comment that the foundation for the proposed double storey side extension would have to be partly built the under the neighbour’s side wall in order to centralise the weight distribution. On receiving confirmation from the Parish Council representative on what he had said the Member advised that this was a Building Regulations issue and not one for the Committee to consider.
The ward Member referred to objections to the application which had been received from a neighbour at No. 53A Northwood End Road and the Parish Council. She explained that the resident at No. 53A was unable to attend the meeting but he had submitted many documents to the planning officers. The neighbour had considered the Council’s Design Guidelines in great depth and felt that the Council was, in effect, proposing to not comply with its own Guidelines. The ward Member referred to the neighbour’s concern that there would not be, as required and confirmed by his own measurements, a 1m gap between the ground floor side walls of No. 53A and the new extension and the new gable end wall would be permitted on his boundary line. In support of his objection the neighbour had referred to issues relating to the street view, the overbearing impact on his property, loss of light, loss of privacy, design, proposed construction materials and loss of amenity space and garden security. The ward Member referred to the Late Sheet and the proposed additional condition regarding a parking arrangement and asked if the parking arrangement would be submitted for public consultation.
The ward Member then referred to the neighbour’s technical comments before she explained that under the application would result in an extremely cramped development. Further, the front garden would become a parking area and access to the rear of the property would only be possible through the house itself. The ward Member commented that, looking at the street scene, there was nothing absolutely consistent in the appearance of the properties. She therefore suggested that consideration should be given to achieving a level of similarity with the adjoining semi-detached property at No. 51. The ward Member stated that most properties in the road had gained rear extensions with which she had no issue. However, and despite the first floor of the side extension being brought inward so it did not project as far out as the ground floor, the proposed side extension would ... view the full minutes text for item 10