House extension at 22 Churchill Road, Whitchurch

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey entrance extension and a first-floor extension above the garage, creating a bedroom, office and en suite.

“The proposed first floor front extension over the existing double garage will constitute an overly dominant feature which will have a harmful impact upon the legibility and primacy of the host dwelling. The proposed first floor extension will also have a harmful impact upon the existing uniformity of the immediate street scene by introducing a sizable and discordant feature at first floor level.”

“The Proposal: The proposal seeks to erect a single storey front extension to the entrance level enlarging the porch and playroom as well as a new first floor extension above the existing double garage to the front creating a new bedroom/office and en suite.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a two-storey detached home in a residential cul-de-sac, one of three similar properties with front double garages.

“Site Description: The application site comprises a two storey, split level detached dwelling set towards the end of Churchill Road, a residential Cul De Sac of similar size and age detached properties with some design variants within the village of Whitchurch. Churchill Road is the middle house of three all of the same design, each with a double garage extending to the front and the dwelling set behind this at a slightly lower topographical level.”

Officer report

Consultation and residents

The town council supported the application, drainage officers raised no objection subject to a condition, and three residents supported the proposals.

“Drainage (Internal): No Objection subject to condition…”

“Representations: Representations from Residents Three letters of representation have been received all of which are in support of the application. They can be summarised as follows: • Proposal will improve the outdated appearance of the property and general street scene. • Proposal will enhance the property and area generally.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant described the extension as modest and useful for home working, while a ward member said it would not harm the area.

Members’ debate

Some members considered the street scene varied and the home office beneficial, although one member suggested a more sympathetic design.

“Committee Debate: Some Members felt that the development would not have a considerable impact on the street scene given the other styles within the road. The extension was for a home office reflecting the modern style of working and reduction in travel, which supported the objectives within relevant associated policies in the JLP. In addition, the proposals were not felt to be contrary to the design requirements set out within policy DEV20.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee granted conditional approval, finding that the whole proposal met the objectives of relevant development and design policies.

“Following this vote, the Committee then debated the reasons as to why the application should be granted conditional approval. It was felt that, when the proposal was considered as a whole, it accorded to the objectives of Polices DEV1 and DEV20 of the JLP and Policy SD1 of the Tavistock Neighbourhood Plan.”

“A proposal was then PROPOSED and SECONDED to GRANT conditional approval, subject to:”

Minutes