Rear extension and loft conversion at 30 Cunard Avenue, Southampton

What was proposed

The application sought a part two-storey and part single-storey rear extension, loft conversion and roof alterations, with some works already started.

“The proposal seeks full planning permission to add a part two storey, part single storey rear extension, loft conversion with roof alterations to hip to gable, and a dormer on rear elevation. Some of these works have already been commenced, therefore the application is part retrospective.”

“The loft conversion with roof alterations to hip to gable and dormer on the rear elevation would fall within ‘permitted development’ limitations and have previously been approved under application 26/00068/PLDC. These works are not now for consideration by the Panel although amended plans were received for completeness to show the full development of the property to include the previously approved loft conversion scheme.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey detached house in a residential area of detached and semi-detached homes with driveways and rear gardens.

“The application site comprises a two-storey detached property located along Cunard Avenue. The front of the property is southwest facing.”

“The area comprises of a mix of detached and semi-detached two storey properties with driveways and sizable rear gardens. The area is residential in nature.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was acceptable in principle and would not cause significant harm to neighbours, the area or highways.

“The proposals would not generate additional vehicle movements on the highway and a driveway area is available for at least 2 cars. The proposal would not cause harm to highway safety or available on-street parking in the area.”

“For the reasons set out above the proposal is acceptable in principle and is not considered to result in significant harm to neighbouring amenity, the character of the area or the local highway network. The recommendation is, therefore, to conditionally approve the development noting the objections received.”

Officer report

What people said

Residents submitted 15 supporting and 13 opposing representations, raising concerns about scale, appearance, amenity, parking and early works, while supporters cited improvements and family needs.

“Following the receipt of the planning application a publicity exercise in line with department procedures was undertaken which included notifying adjoining and nearby landowners. At the time of writing the report 28 representations have been received from surrounding residents with 15 letters received in support, and 13 objections. The following is a summary of the points raised:”

“The outbuilding/annexe is not properly included or assessed within the application and appears capable of independent residential use, raising further concerns regarding its scale and function. Response The outbuilding is not part of this application. Planning Enforcement have confirmed that there is no planning breach at the time of writing, and is within all permitted development requirements.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Local residents spoke against the proposal, the agent spoke, and statements from a representative and a local neighbour were noted.

Changes at the meeting

Officers proposed removing the timing condition because works had begun and adding obscure glazing and fixed-shut requirements for side windows.

“All windows in the side elevations, located at second floor level of the hereby approved development, shall be obscurely glazed and fixed shut up to a height of 1.7 metres from the internal floor level before the development is first occupied. The windows shall be thereafter retained in this manner.”

Minutes

The vote

The amended recommendation was carried, with councillors recorded as voting for and one councillor also recorded as abstaining.

“The Panel then considered recommendation (as varied with the amended conditions) that the application be conditionally approved subject to criteria listed in the report as amended above. Upon being put to the vote the recommendations as amended were carried.”

“FOR: Councillors Crook, Greenhalgh, Pryce, Shank, Shields, Windle. ABSTAINED: Councillor Shank…”

Minutes

The final decision

The panel approved planning permission subject to the report’s conditions and the additional amended conditions.

“RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions set out within the report and the additional amended conditions set out above.”

Minutes