home - committee - volume - faq's - help -search - meeting - previous - next

V28-289 : W899/15 - 33/35 KIRKLEY PARK ROAD, LOWESTOFT

Application for extension and alterations to residential care home.

The report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration and Environment) outlined an application to which 16 letters of objection had been received concerned with such matters as unacceptable design/over-development, adverse impact on Conservation Area, overlooking, unacceptable traffic generation, parking on street frontage, visual impact, noise and location.

The application was for a substantial rear extension to 33 and 35 Kirkley Park Road, with a link between the two properties. The extension would incorporate an enclosed courtyard and would extend for almost the full width of the rear gardens, although set 4.5 metres in from the southern boundary with number 31. The extension would include ten new residents bedrooms, a dining room, visitor accommodation and doctor's room. The linking section would incorporate an entrance hall, bathroom and meeting room. The only two storey element of the application, a lift shaft, would protrude through the existing main rear roof slope, necessitating the moving of a first floor window to directly overlook number 51.

The application had come about due to re-registration requirements meaning the sizes and facilities of rooms needed to be upgraded. There were 21 rooms at the moment, but without the extension the new requirements would mean only 16 rooms would be allowed in the existing building. The cost of alterations to be made would only be financially viable to the applicant if 30 persons could be resident at the premises. At present two thirds of the rooms were double and one third single, and the new standards would mean a need to reverse that ratio, hence the proposal to substantially extend the premises.

In assessing the application the impact on existing residential amenity and the Conservation Area were the key considerations. The extension was well designed, but its sheer size would mean considerable visual impact from adjacent dwellings. The proximity of external doors and windows also had the potential to create a noise impact. The proposal to remove the front wall of number 33 and create frontage parking would change the character of the residential street frontage. Use of a substantial part of the rear garden meant the proposal could be considered over-development. The application was therefore considered to be contrary to policy and only an extension considerably smaller to that proposed would be acceptable. The Director recommended refusal.

Before commencement of the debate Councillor Baxter declared receipt of correspondence concerning the application.

Members were sympathetic that the applicant had to make substantial changes to his property to comply with new regulations, and whilst they agreed that the present proposal was overly large, with an unacceptable impact on the neighbour, rather than refuse the application outright they were minded to defer it for further negotiation in the hope of receiving a more acceptable design with less impact on the neighbour.

RESOLVED

That consideration of application W899/15 be deferred for further negotiation with the applicant on a reduced design.


Volume 28 Minute 289

powered by Oultwood Web Technology

© Waveney District Council