Agenda item

GD introduced the application as above, a revised scheme on a previously approved one.  This enlarges the first floor, adds two more Velux windows, changes the patio door on the rear elevation changes the first floor window on the rear elevation, increasing the height and eaves height by 20cm.  It is at Committee as request on Councillor Whyborn.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Fawke, neighbour, in objection

Less than a year ago, a planning officer made a decision on the rear upstairs windows on the proposed extension, and cannot comprehend how a new planning officer has made a U-turn on that decision.  Last year, instead of larger three-paned windows, the officer approved two double-paned windows.  At a loss to understand how the owner can reapply within a year and again request larger three-paned windows previously denied.  The owner is trying to push the boundaries; it is unfair and should not be allowed, and will impact even more on privacy and overlooking at her own property.  Has a patio window and small window in her lounge but would be able to see much more – as the neighbours will do – if it was the same size as what next door is proposing. The house will be doubled in size, nearer to the boundary, with view into her teenage daughter’s bedroom, garden and lounge.  Is requesting that the windows remain as previously approved, particularly as the owner already has so much window space approved, not in keeping with the surrounding houses.  There seems to be conflicting decision making by the council – when Manor Farm was built a few years ago, the council required No. 10 Manor Farm Drive to block its back window, just under 21m from 21 Sedgewick Gardens and 11 The Hawthorns, yet her property is only 7m from No 21, and at a 90 degree angle so easily overlooked.  Has lived at her property for 28 years, while the owner of No 21 has rented his home out for the majority of that time.  Did not object to the extension, but if this current application is permitted, it will set a precedent.  Is simply asking that the council stands by its original planning decision.

Councillor McKinlay, in objection

All the points made by Mrs Fawke are correct, and there are a number of key issues here.  There is already an approved planning permission fort this site, the result of considerable negotiation, and the similar application before us today is not acceptable.  It gives very mixed messages that less than a year ago this proposal was not considered acceptable, yet today it is.  Paragraph 1.4 of the report update lists the changes to the previous scheme – these are not individually significant, but clearly combine to result in significant overlooking of No 23.  With only 7m from the back of the new extension to the neighbouring property, this will have a significant impact.  Members on Planning View will have drawn their own conclusions about the appropriateness and proximity of this extension – it is up to There will undoubtedly be extra impact on the neighbours due to the proximity, and this case sets an unwelcome precedent for the future.

Member debate:

HM:  the neighbour’s sole concern is that the two rear windows will be three-pane instead of double-pane.  Looking at the previous report, it was considered that this would result in unacceptable overlooking.  What has changed?

BF:  officers would have made their decision in line with policy CP4, and granted double-pane windows accordingly.  Is at a loss to know what has changed.

MJC, in response:

-       essentially the application made 12 months ago was significantly amended through negotiations.  As usual, some things were acceptable and some were not.  The windows were reduced from three-pane to double-pane, and the question is whether we would have refused the planning permission for this along – the answer is no.  The neighbour objected strongly to the three-pane windows and they were left out; this is what neighbour consultation process is about;

-       planning permission is now in place, and the applicant is looking for some minor changes. The question officers have to ask themselves is whether the scheme is acceptable.  Any overlooking will be oblique – the windows will not look directly into the garden.  The speaker referred to the Rusty Shilling development where windows were blocked up, but these faced each other directly, albeit at greater distance;

-       here the properties are at right angles to each other. What Members are being asked to consider is the difference between casements for two panes and three panes – struggles to see that this will make a vast difference;

-       officers consider the proposal to be acceptable, and would be interested to hear Members articulate the additional harm they think this window will bring.

KS:  with the original application, was the issue one of overlooking or the perception of overlooking?  Is the perception of being overlooked an amenity issue?  This hasn’t changed since last year.

MJC, in response:

-       perception of overlooking is an issue, though officers might not agree;

-       there are a number of proposals before us, many of which are acceptable.  If Members would find it helpful, officers can craft a decision to allow the other works to take place but not the windows;

PT:  is struggling with this.  Cannot see how overlooking from three panes of glass is greater than two panes.  Are there only two opening panes?

BF:  if the size of the window increases by one third, the field of vision is much wider.  Policy CP4 would be a legitimate reason to refuse this application.

SW:  notes a number of alterations to the plans.  Has a view on Velux windows and patio doors, but understands that it is the upstairs windows that are giving the neighbour concerns.  Can the application be permitted for everything apart from the upstairs windows, which have to remain as originally permitted? 

MJC, in response:

-       could attach condition to say all OK apart from the windows.  Believes this to be just about OK, but will check with legal officer:

NJ, in response: 

-       agrees – on balance, this will just about meet the tests.

GB: suggests a vote to permit, with the exception of the first floor windows to the rear elevation.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, with restriction on size of first floor windows to rear limited to those previously permitted.

14 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT