RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the construction of a single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, and the replacement of windows on the front, side and rear elevations with matching double-glazed timber painted window at 70 Jerningham Road, SE14, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.
6.1 The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the construction of a single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, and the replacement of windows on the front, side and rear elevations with matching double-glazed timber painted window at 70 Jerningham Road, SE14 subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.
6.2 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.
6.3 Members raised questions and officers’ responses were as follows:
· The picture of the rear extension was an accurate representation. There were large patios doors onto the garden and the room would be a kitchen/living room.
· The proposed extension would protrude 1 metre into the garden from the rear existing wall. This protrusion was permitted within regulations and could be up to 3 metres. This proposal was also acceptable within a Conservation Area particularly since the design and materials to be used were of high quality.
· There was a distinction between changes to buildings that were visible to the public realm and those that were not. Members were advised that within the National Policy Planning Framework, there was a reference to the significance of heritage assets. An extension was not considered acceptable simply because it could not be seen from the public realm. Officers must consider the significance of the heritage asset and the extent to which proposed works would affect that significance.
6.4 The agent, on behalf of the applicant, attended the meeting. He outlined the services offered by his company with regard to residential architecture, particularly extensions of period properties. The applicant wanted to redesign aspects of the property. They understood and respected the unique character of the area. They intended to be responsible custodians of the property; they would repair and re-instate original features and make it more energy efficient.
6.5 The agent outlined the following:
· Two key design strategies for the rear extension; a modest scale and appearance and a clear differential between extension and host dwelling.
· Details of the materials to be used in the extension were outlined.
· Side and rear extensions would be significantly glazed to increase natural daylight.
· Objections of light pollution were addressed.
· This was not an uncommon extension in a Conservation Area and similar applications had been granted in the area. The extension was not visible from the public realm.
· A letter of support was submitted for the roof extension and the rear extension.
6.6 Members questions were answered as follows:
· Timber would be used rather than London brick because the brick on the host building was weathered and new bricks were yellow and would not age in the same way. It was considered more appropriate to use timber which was natural and textured so there would be a subtle difference in the materials
· In the report it stated that there was ‘potential’ for high quality materials. One of the conditions stated that all the materials would be submitted to the council prior to the commencement of the works. The agent would be on site during construction and would ensure that the materials were of a high quality.
6.7 The Chair of the Telegraph Hill Society addressed the Committee. He raised the following points.
· The report stated that the visibility of the extension to the public realm was limited. The view was restricted due to boundary fencing and planting. There was no guarantee that the current fencing or trees would remain.
· The Conservation Area appraisal referred to the rear of properties and stated that they should be as uniform as the front. The rear was as significant to the character of the property as the front.
6.8 In the report it stated that there were no grounds to object to the application. The objector did not agree for the following reasons:
· The bay window at the rear had been demolished with an extension only a few centimetres larger than the existing window. This was, therefore, an additional large window rather than an extension.
· The rear extension was incongruous with the neighbouring bay window.
· The materials were not considered compatible for the area. The property was constructed with London brick. The proposed materials were aluminium and timber.
6.9 The SPD stated that high quality design could be successful in creating a differential between host buildings and the extension, but it also stated that traditional designs could be more successful to the character of the building. The SPD stated that extensions in a conservation area should respect the design of the original building. The objector said that the extension did not respect the design or the character of the original building.
6.10 A member expressed concern about the aesthetic appearance of the building if the application was granted. Officers were asked for assurance that the materials used would be of high quality, not simply have the potential. Members were advised that the use of the word ‘potential’ was used for cautionary reasons. When the applicant submitted details of the materials to be used, officers could judge the quality.
6.11 There was discussion about extensions in a conservation area. The report referenced that if an extension could not be seen from the public realm, then it would not damage the conservation area. The representative from the Telegraph Hill Society did not agree with this view. One member questioned what was acceptable in a conservation area and expressed concern at the demolition of the bay window at the rear of the property that had previously mirrored the adjoining property.
6.12 One member referenced that policy compliance and lawfulness should be the main consideration, not personal preference.
The Committee considered the submissions made at the meeting, and
RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the construction of a single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, and the replacement of windows on the front, side and rear elevations with matching double-glazed timber painted window at 70 Jerningham Road, SE14.