RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the construction of a single storey rear and side extension, installation of replacement windows at the front and rear elevations and hard and soft landscaping works to the front garden including installation of cycle and refuse stores at 156 Erlanger Road SE14, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.
5.1 The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant planning permission for the construction of a single storey rear and side extension, installation of replacement windows at the front and rear elevations and hard and soft landscaping works to the front garden including installation of cycle and refuse stores at 156 Erlanger Road SE14.
5.2 The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:
•Principle of Development;
• Urban Design and Impact on Heritage Assets;
• Impact on Adjoining Properties;
5.3 The Architect for the application, said that the156 Erlanger Road was in a poor state and would be restored to an excellent condition. Several of the original features had been lost and would be restored to enhance and preserve the character of the Conservation Area. The energy efficiency of the premises would be enhanced.
5.4 The key driver behind the design for the proposed extension was to keep a visual distinction between the original property and the proposed new addition. This would be achieved by using glazed elements between the two and use of cladding material that were sustainable and visually different to the original property. The Architect outlined the suitability of the cladding.
5.5 The new party wall and rear wall to the proposed extension would be insulated to current building regulations and new windows would be triple glazed. Modern residential extensions, like this application, were common in Victorian houses; there were several similar extensions in the same road and surrounding streets.
5.6 The boundary wall would be 2 metres high. Although the land at 154 Erlanger Road was slightly higher and at 158 Erlanger Road slightly lower, the wall would not exceed the maximum height allowed under permitted development.
5.7 Members were advised that the dining room would be in the kitchen rather than having two separate rooms, and the application did not breach the maximum height and depth allowed under the 25 and 35 degree rule which had been tested. Resident’s privacy at 154 Erlanger Road would not be compromised and residents at 158 would gain more privacy because the extension would protrude 1.2 metres further than the lean-to shed. There would not be any loss of sunlight at either of the properties.
5.8 In conclusion, the Architect said that there were similar extensions in the area, the poor condition of the property would be improved, and energy efficiency increased. The restoration of the original features, along with the extension, would ensure that the property could be enjoyed long into the future.
5.9 The objector, the Chairman of the Telegraph Hill Society, addressed the Committee. The Society did not have any objection to the proposals for the front of the property. The objection related to the rear and the destruction of the original features. Extensions to existing properties should not be permitted if incompatible with the special characteristics of the area. The SPD stated that extensions should respect the original design and architectural feature of the existing building. It stated that a modern high-quality design could be successful, but it also stated that a traditional approach could be a more sensitive response. This property was part of a number of buildings built by Haberdashers Livery Company and uniformity was important.
5.10 There was precedence in the area, where extensions had not been built with a traditional approach as preferred by the Telegraph Hill Society. The objector said that members could not take precedence into account when making their decision. In the opinion of the Telegraph Hill Society, the more properties that lose their original features, the worse the problem becomes. He said that members should consider whether the cumulative effect of these alterations was destroying the area as a whole.
5.11 In the report, the objections contained an overall theme, which was the special characteristics of the area. In conclusion, the objector asked whether the facades to the rear of the properties in the Telegraph Hill area would continue to be changed. This would not be in keeping with the area.
5.12 The objector was asked whether the officer had given due consideration and presented an accurate report on that which was visible/ not visible from the public realm. The objector said that given that the SPD specifically states that the original design and architectural feature of the existing building should be respected, the traditional approach had not been addressed.
5.13 In response to a question from a member, the Architect confirmed that there was a lean-to adjacent to the building which was an external W.C at the rear of the neighbouring property.
5.14 Although the Telegraph Hill Society preferred a more traditional design, a high quality, modern design was also acceptable and was not in contravention to the National Planning Policy or adopted policies and guidance.
5.15 The Committee considered the submissions made at the meeting and
RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the construction of a single storey rear and side extension, installation of replacement windows at the front and rear elevations and hard and soft landscaping works to the front garden including installation of cycle and refuse stores at 156 Erlanger Road SE14., subject to conditions and informatives in the report.