Agenda item

GD introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Nelson.  The reasons for the recommended refusal are two-fold:  firstly the unacceptable impact the proposed extension will have on the neighbour’s amenity, in particular daylight, and secondly that it will not achieve the desired level of subservience. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Adam Greenslade, of Brodie Manning, in support

The applicant’s intention is to improve the overall appearance of his home and secure a much-needed additional bedroom for his growing family, rather than move away from the area where he’s lived for over 16 years and is involved in the community in a business and personal level.  The applicant has devoted a substantial amount of time to the sympathetic renovation of the internal space and re-building the garage in consultation with the conservation officer.  He would now like to focus on the outside of the building, providing a coherent rear addition to replace the ad hoc extensions of the past.  In the design process, a constraint has been the location of a ground floor window at the neighbouring property.  This window is already compromised by the built form on both properties, supported by the a British Research Establishment ‘right to daylight’ calculation which demonstrates no greater loss of light to this window will result from the current proposal.  The aim of the design is to reduce the built of the built form along this boundary by introducing a flat roof and moving the gable away from this boundary, which would  arguably act as an improvement whilst ensuring a sympathetic design solution.  There was no objection from the neighbouring property when the proposal was submitted.

Member debate:

CN:  the update refers to the proposed extension reducing light to the neighbouring window, but by how much?

SW:  the pivotal point is ground floor window; if there was an objection from  next door or if the proposal would break the daylight angle, could not support it, but as there is already inhibition to the neighbour’s window from the current building and the neighbour doesn’t appear to have any objection, is in favour.  The building will look a lot better than its current ramshackle state, with bits on the back here and there – this tidies it up.  Is minded to support.

PB:  agrees with SW.  That there is no objection from the neighbour is pertinent.  The existing building is a bit of a mish-mash, and this will tidy it up.  Can see there are grounds to refuse, but on balance can support the proposal.

PT:  listening to the agent, it sounds as if the new extension will be moved back from the boundary a bit – won’t this improve the situation?  If so, we should support the application.

MJC, in response:

-       The major point here is the impact on the neighbour.  The existing extension has a significant impact on the neighbour’s ground floor window, and this proposal will make it worse.  Members seem to be saying that because the window is already overshadowed, this doesn’t matter;

-       Officers have requested a detailed light assessment to understand the severity of the light loss, and trying to establish if it will be noticeable, by testing how much light the window receives now and how much it will receive post-extension.  If the loss is more than 20%, it will be noticeable.  Calculations suggest that the best part of one-third of the existing light to the window will be lost;

-       This guidance is what officers use as best practice, using a method which ‘quantifies’ daylight.  With a score of less than 27 a room  is considered poorly lit; the room currently scores 19, and after the extension will score 13.  There has been no objection from the neighbour, but the proposal will undoubtedly make the light situation a lot worse;

-       Officer opinion is that the design is not inspiring, and that a two-storey flat roof extension on the back of a charming cottage will not enhance it in any way;

-       These two issues together make a strong reason to refuse the application, and similar proposals have been dismissed at appeal.

CN:  thanked officers for the comprehensive answer on the light issue.  Members have considered various applications tonight to expand properties for different reasons, all of which have been accepted.  Every applicant has different personal circumstances, but in this case, the applicant has lived here for a while, loves the area, and wants to improve his home or his family.  It has been suggested that the design will improve the appearance of the back of the house.  On the issue of light, there have been no objections from neighbours; wonders whether the reality on the ground will be different from the technical assessment?  The works will have no impact on Church Road, and will improve things at the back.  In view of this, and no formal objection from the neighbour, is minded to support the application.

BF:  is not in favour.  With planning applications, legitimate reasons are needed to refuse, and there is one here.  The loss of light is not borderline; it is extreme.  The light test is important, and loss of light will impact on the neighbour’s environment day in day out.  In view of the detailed light assessment, it would be wrong to go against the officer recommendation; planning is quasi-judicial, and to ignore the light test would be foolish.

CH:  one of the drawings appears to show a pitched room right across to the neighbour’s property.  Is that right?

GB:  Members were confused by this on the site visit; the extension is quite difficult to envisage.

MJC, in response:

-       Essentially the scheme has a lean-to at ground level, and behind that a first floor extension the full width of the property, including a gable with French doors;

-       The flat roof extension projects further into the garden than the existing, and it is this which will cause loss of light to the neighbouring property.

SW:  looking at the map and at Google earth, notices the property faces due south, and would suggest that if the sun is shining, the building will reflect the light in rather than take it away, after reducing it first thing in the morning. Is still in favour of supporting this scheme.

NJ, in response:

-       The technical evidence would suggest opposite; Members need to be mindful of that.

MJC, in response:

-       Agrees with NJ.  It is difficult to blur sunlight and daylight.  The daylight test is just about sky; it is a thorough test, national best practice, and this proposal is a strong fail.

CN:  if the rear of the property is south-facing, it will receive a lot of sunlight throughout the day.  Reinforces what SW has said.

GB:  but as the officer has said, sunlight and daylight are not the same.  This proposal does not pass the daylight test.  It is Members’ prerogative to go against officer recommendation, but planning reasons will be needed to support this. 

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

11 in support

3 in objection

REFUSE