Agenda item

BH introduced the application as above, at Planning Committee because the Parish Council feels it will have an overbearing impact on neighbouring property.  The applicant has changed the roof from gable to hip, and officers do not feel that the impact will be overbearing.  The recommendation is therefore to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr and Mrs Simpson, neighbours, in objection

Mrs Simpson:

Has lived happily in Whitethorn Drive for 31 years, but considers the proposed extension next door to be overbearing, resulting in loss of sunlight and an oppressive structure looming over their patio.  The proposal is out of proportion to the house and garden.  Three houses on the estate have had extensions, one of which is 26foot in length, and if a similar scheme was proposed here, would have no objection.  The proposed kitchen window will be just four feet from the boundary, with resultant noise and smells affecting their enjoyment of the patio.  The extension is overbearing and sky-blocking, and should be scaled down.

Mr Simpson:

The objections to this application are all relate to matters of well-being and quality of life.  Recently had a new patio extension, including level access and ramps to allow easy wheelchair access.  Is very concerned about possible damage  as a result of vibro-compaction piling, and would like to insist that the owners of Number 45 should issue a notice regarding the Party all Act of 1996, Section 6

Mr Walker, applicant, in support

He and his family love living in Prestbury; his children attend the local school, and as they hope to remain here long term, would like to improve their living space.  The upstairs plans have been changed so that all rooms face the garden.  The footprint is only increased by 10%.  Regarding loss of light to the neighbouring property, the proposal passes the light test and will not make a significant difference to the light next door.  With the fence, trellis, summer house, and tree, the neighbour currently has no view across the garden.  Agreed the fencing with the neighbour, who subsequently added the trellis.  The extension will add to privacy, and will not obscure anyview of Cleeve Hill.  Style-wise, the proposal blends with the existing design, and is similar to other extension on the estate.  Regarding subsidence, takes this issue very seriously and has taken professional advice; will seek and comply with the Party Wall Act.

Member debate:

PT:  the neighbour mentioned piling; where does that come into this application?

PB:  requests clarity regarding the kitchen window and whether or not it will overlook the neighbouring property.

SW:  regarding piling, this may well be needed – officers will know – but presumably there are stringent guidelines if damage is caused by the piling – the applicant will be obliged to make good?

BH, in response:

-       regarding piling, sought advice from Building Control – this is set out at Paragraph 6.17 of the officer report.  The advice is that the proposed development is unlikely to harm neighbouring properties, but is likely to require pile foundations – this has been passed on to the applicant.  It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the foundations are correct.  If piling is needed, Environmental Health officers have suggested hours of operation for the work;

-       regarding the kitchen windows, the plan shows two – one to the rear and one to the side – both at ground level, looking into the applicant’s own land, and in a position where one would expect them to be.  There will be no overlooking issues here.

AL:  considering the ground structure, can a party wall-type agreement be conditioned in the permission?

BH, in response:

-       the Party Wall Act is quite separate from planning, and not available for planners to use to control development.

PB:  is not sure what the officer has said is correct:  one of the kitchen windows looks sideways towards the neighbouring property.

PT:  the local authority may not be able to help but party wall agreements are quite easy to obtain through a solicitor. 

BH, in response:

-       apologies if not clear regarding the windows.  There are two windows shown on the plans; one in the existing side wall of the original property, adjoining the boundary.  The other window looks down the applicant’s garden.  Both windows are at ground floor level; there will not be any overlooking.

PB:  the new ground floor window appears to be clear glass, and looking towards the neighbouring property.

BH, in response:

-       it is a new window in an existing wall, and could be installed under permitted development without planning permission.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

3 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT