PRESENT:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Bobbin, Andy Booth, Richard Darby, Mike Dendor, James Hall, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern (Chairman), Prescott (Vice-Chairman) and Ben Stokes.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Mick Galvin.

OFFICERS PRESENT:  Philippa Davies and Ross McCardle.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Roger Clark, Mark Ellen, Sue Gent and James Hunt.

The Chairman welcomed nine members of the public to the meeting.

The Senior Planner outlined the application which was for the demolition of the existing detached garage, and the erection of a side and rear extension, creation of a first floor, including dormer windows and roof lights to the north and south elevations.  He explained that the side extension would project four metres to the side at the front of the property and six metres to the rear, forming an L-shaped extension.  There would be two pitched-roof dormer windows to the front, and a dormer and two roof lights to the rear.

Twelve letters of objection to the application had been received; these outlined points already noted in the report.  The Senior Planner advised that the previous application (15/501692) had included a hip-to-gable roof conversion; this one included a hipped roof, pitched away from the common boundary.  He stated the application was within the built-up area, and he considered it to be a relatively small extension.  The height of the dwelling would not be increased, and terracing effect and loss of openness was unlikely.  The Senior Planner advised that the insertion of rear dormer windows were in any case allowed under Permitted Development Rights.  He considered overlooking, overshadowing and loss of privacy would not be an issue; the rear-to-rear distance was 23 metres which was above the minimum requirement.  There would be no windows to the side, and he advised that parking was in accordance with the current adopted Kent Parking Standards.

Local residents made the following comments:  this had not changed significantly, compared to the previous application; this was a small cul-de-sac, the size of the application was out-of-keeping; only slight alterations had been made; this was not a small extension, it was a major alteration; nothing had changed with regard to the overbearing aspect of the proposed extension; the property could attract a family, with the potential of additional cars, resulting in parking issues; this was overbearing and would result in overlooking; it would spoil the character of the area; this was a tranquil, well laid out neighbourhood; the problems in the original application had not been addressed or modified;  the dormer windows would result in overlooking; and the door to the rear was very close to the adjoining property’s bedroom window.

In response to a question, the Senior Planner advised that the dwelling opposite was not comparable in design with the proposed dwelling as it did not feature a side extension, and had a front box dormer and gable end.  He confirmed that the distance from the new garage to the side fence was approximately one metre.

Members then toured the site and neighbouring properties with the officer.