Agenda item

DM2019/00259 - 4 Beggars Roost Lane, Sutton, SM1 2DX

Erection of a single storey front / side extension and a single storey rear extension, formation of a dormer extension to flank roof slope and alterations to existing windows and provision of additional windows. Erection of a detached single storey outbuilding.


The Committee considered a report on the above application for retention of windows and fenestration alterations to the front, side and rear elevations of the property, a dormer extension to the side roof slope, additional rooflights and the flat roof above the garage and proposed erection of a single storey front/side extension, single storey rear extension, additional windows to flank elevations of rear extension and a detached single storey outbuilding.


The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Kevin Burke.


Following the presentation by Jody Williams Deputy Planning Manager, Members requested clarification on:


Members discussed the size of the development of the main structure and the ancillary building in the garden and considered what was acceptable under permitted development, additions to the planning application which had been agreed, and that it was these being considered in this application.


The site is a cul de sac houses in the road are not of a uniform character, the plot ratio to garden is for this application not significantly less than other properties in the area.


Ronak Dashan, an objector, and Councillor Lily Bande, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant Mr Holland replied.


The principal issues raised by the objector were:-


The information provided from a previous appeal to the Planning Inspectorate at this site but that this had been ignored in this application.


Trees have been removed on the site.


The site would be over developed by the size of the application.


There are a number of windows, included in the design and that several of these would overlook other properties, including into bedrooms.


The principal issues raised by the ward Councillor were:-


The application is for a property which would be too large for the plot and would dominate other properties in the area.


This development would be able to be seen from the Landseer Road conservation area.


The principal issues raised by the applicant/agent were:-


The applicant would be happy to consider the addition of landscaping to the application.


It was confirmed the ancillary building is for storage rather than dwelling, and it is of single wall construction.


In debate, Members considered that: 


There are 12  windows on the west flank  elevation of the application, some would be obscured but that sight into bedrooms of surrounding properties remained. They noted that the appeal ruling information provided included that there should not be any further windows added, however this application included additional windows.


In addition, members raised concern of the amount of glazing in the west facing elevation as this would give rise to a perception of overlooking of neighbours.


The application would result in a reduction in the property /garden ratio, and is for a large property on a small plot which raised concerns about the bulk and dominance.


Members discussed the additional size of the various additions added to the property, and the total dimensions of this application.


Any landscaping requested to be added would require input from the tree officer, and that the space for landscaping is restricted by space available.


Members referred to the reason for de delgation of the application provided in the report.


Officers clarified the area is a green corridor, and provided details.


Councillor Tony Shields motioned to refuse on the grounds: that the proposed application would be excessive in width, bulk, scale and appearance, being disproportionate and overly dominant, which would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would create a detrimental impact on the setting of the Landseer Road conservation area and in addition, members raised concern of the amount of glazing in the west facing elevation as this would give rise to a perception of overlooking of neighbours.




Supporting documents: