Agenda item

10 Manor Lane

Planning Manager Helen Milner introduced the details of the application to members and noted that two objections were received to the application including an objection from the Lee Manor Society. The objections concerned the contemporary roof design of the extension which includes a celestial window and the impact on neighbouring amenity. Helen Milner noted that the extension is entirely confined to the rear and is therefore not visible from the public realm.

Councillor Walsh asked whether the celestial window is entirely glazed and would there be any light spill. Helen Milner commented that there is potential for light spill but noted that this is a densely populated urban area with an existing degree of light spill. Councillor Walsh asked where the internal lights are positioned. Helen Milner replied that this question should be reserved for the architect and commented that it is not possible to control internal lighting. Councillor Walsh responded that the type of glazing can be conditioned.

The committee heard a verbal presentation from Olga McMurdo, the architect for the project, and Lucy Smith-Unwin the owner of the property. Olga McMurdo described the design brief which was to retain the period features within a contemporary design and to enhance the integration between the internal and external space. Olga McMurdo then commented on the rear extensions in the vicinity of the property and noted the variety of roof designs and different scales and dimensions. It was then explained to members that the roof design references the outrigger roof pitch and is designed to allow as much natural light into the extension reducing the need for artificial light.

Lucy Smith-Unwin stated that they bought the property because they fell in love with the period features and hoped to restore those features. Mrs Smith-Unwin then explained that she had pre-application discussions with the Council and amended the design to reduce the potential impact on neighbours. It was also noted that the drawings were sent to the Lee Manor Society prior to the submission of the application.

Councillor Ingleby asked whether there was internal planting and if the glazing will prevent reflection. Olga McMurdo explained that the illustrations on the drawing were house plants and stated that the glazing would be high clarity reducing reflection. Councillor Holland asked for the design rational for the roof design. Olga McMurdo responded that the roof design reflects the pitched roofs of the host property and stated that flat roofs are a modern feature.

Councillor Holland enquired whether the rear of the property was visible from the public realm. Helen Milner responded that the property is classic terrace plot form arranged rear to rear and therefore is not visible from the public realm. Councillor Holland asked how long the gardens are. Olga McMurdo responded that the garden is 24m in depth. Helen Milner noted that a number of the neighbouring properties have extensions obscuring views of the extension from neighbouring gardens. Councillor Walsh stated that the pitch of the roof is steeper than the existing outrigger. Olga McMurdo explained that the pitch is the same angle but that the 2D drawing may be visually misleading.

Members then heard a verbal presentation from Charles Batchelor, representing the Lee Manor Society, objecting to the proposed development. Charles Batchelor began by explaining that a loss of detail and unsympathetic additions over time detract from and destroy the conservation area. Mr Batchelor clarified to members that the Lee Manor Society had seen drawings prior to the submission of the application but they did not include the rear extension. Mr Batchelor stated that the design of the roof is clearly contrary to DM Policies 31 and 36 as it would not respect the Victorian form of the property and would stand out amongst the neighbouring extensions. Mr Batchelor concluded by drawing attention to the new Alterations and Extensions SPD and stated that the document emphasises a renewed focus on protecting the rear elevations of properties in conservation areas. 

Helen Milner noted that the document is in draft form and has not undergone any formal consultation and stated that the document provides guidance for larger rear extensions. Members were advised that the document should be afforded very limited weight at this stage. Helen Milner also advised members that the section highlighted in DM Policy 31 relates to roof extensions and is therefore not applicable in this case.

Councillor Sorba stated that the Lee Manor Society had the right to protect the conservation area and asked what how much regard should be given to the rear of properties. Paula Young stated that members should have regard to preserving or enhancing the conservation area. Helen Milner stated that it is not a policy requirement for extensions to replicate the design of the host property and noted that the Council have consistently supported contemporary design approaches to the rear of properties. Councillor Sorba asked for clarification whether policy requires the preservation of the original features or whether the character shifts through time. Helen Milner stated that it is only possible to preserve from the date of designation.

Councillor Walsh stated that the roof pitch was visually jarring and is not subordinate to the property. Helen Milner responded that subordinate relates to scale and that this a ground floor extension that does not compete with any first floor features. Helen Milner also noted that only one element projects above the level of the neighbouring extension and regard should be given to whether the extension will be harmful. Councillor Walsh responded by highlighting that the roof design is not contemporary given that it references the outrigger roof. Helen Milner replied that the extension uses a combination of contemporary and traditional materials.

Councillor Holland asked for clarification on the difference between the protection afforded to the front and rear elevations. Helen Milner responded that alterations to the front of properties have a greater impact on the appearance and perception of the conservation area and noted that a number of alterations to the buildings existed prior to the designation of the Lee Manor Conservation Area.

Councillor Walsh asked whether the committee could approve the alterations to the front and refuse the rear extension. Paula Young confirmed that it is possible to issue a split decision. Councillor Sorba stated that the front elevation should be approved and suggested that the applicant could compromise on the design of the rear extension. Helen Milner stated that it would depend on what the concerns are and that conditions could only be used for details such as materials. Councillor Amrani stated that the concerns could not be addressed by conditions and asked members to decide whether the rear extension caused harm to the conservation area.

Councillor Holland stated that her concerns related to the roof design but would not be comfortable recommending refusal. Helen Milner noted that DM Policy 36 does not state that the rears properties should not be protected. Councillor Walsh noted that the new Extensions and Alterations SPD gives a greater level of guidance on these sort of applications and expressed concern with the stepping of heights of rear extensions on the road. Helen Milner explained that the Extensions and Alterations SPD carries very limited/no weight and would only gain weight through formal consultation. Councillor Amrani noted that it is a live document and therefore likely to change.

There followed further deliberation from members. Councillor Ingleby then moved a motion to approve the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Holland.

FOR APPROVAL: Councillors Amrani, Holland, Ingleby,

AGAINST: Councillors Sorba and Walsh

Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/18/106282

Standing orders were suspended at 21:45.