Agenda item

HDJ introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Nelson, on account of the harm it will cause to neighbouring amenity through loss of light to the kitchen window.  Officers consider there are multiple sources of natural light to the kitchen, and therefore the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Small, neighbour, in objection

Is objecting to this application on account of the loss of light to her kitchen.  Officers say there are multiple sources of light, but the light from the patio doors is blocked by a wall.  This is a much-used kitchen, and will be gloomy.  It is north facing, so not the brightest of spaces at the best of times.  This scheme will result in loss of outlook and amenity she has enjoyed for 51 years.  Looking at a brick wall 2.4m from her kitchen window is a horrifying prospect, and will result in a sense of claustrophobia.  Has been advised the proposal doesn’t comply with Cheltenham requirements. 

Member debate:

TO:  went on Planning View, and agrees that the kitchen area is dark, and light currently entering from the patio is deflected.  If this application is permitted, it will infringe on the current light and result in a very dark room.

PT:  will move to refuse this proposal, as the light to the kitchen will be compromised.  The big block in the middle detracts from the light, and the new wall will be very close to the window and very, very oppressive.  It will compromise the neighbour’s enjoyment of her home.

CN:  asked for this application to be brought to Committee; having visited the site was uncomfortable with officer advice, and wanted to see how other Members felt.  Did not go on Planning View for this reason, so welcomes the comments from TO and PT which reinforce his own views.  The loss of light is the predominant issue.  There are four light sources to the kitchen, yet the first thing that struck him on entering the kitchen was that it was generally a dark room.  The large mirror on the back wall is obviously there in an effort to make the most of what limited light there is.  If the extension is allowed to go ahead, it would fail the light test on the last side window, only leaving the patio doors and chimney sun room, through which very limited lights comes in.  The two side windows are north facing, the patio doors west facing.  If the proposal goes ahead, it will have a significant effect on the amenity due to the impact on the light.  It should be refused on Policy CP4 for this reason.

HM:  agrees with all that has been said.  The kitchen was extremely dark and that was on a sunny summer’s day.  What it would be like in Winter doesn’t bear thinking about. 

BF:  wasn’t on Planning View.  Does the proposal pass the light test?

MJC, in response:

-       This has been one of the most difficult light tests he has done.  On Planning View, Members will have seen the different light sources:  two windows facing the site, patio doors, and the roof light.  The light entering the room is not dispersed as if it was open plan.  For this reason, officers looked at a more detailed light test, conducted on the main kitchen window; a marginal fail was suggested on that window.  The other light sources would not be compromised by the development next door.  Officers were therefore satisfied that the impact won’t be noticeable; evidence collected suggests that, although there will be an impact;

-       If the kitchen window was the only light source and taken in isolation, the difference would be noticeable; but as it only marginally failed the light test, officers took an on-balance decision.  A case could be made either way, but officers have to take a positive approach.  Is not surprised Members have reacted as they have. 

PT:  it’s obvious that MJC doesn’t spend much time in the kitchen, bottling fruit, peeling potatoes, washing up, washing.  Adding a wall will make the dark kitchen even darker.  It is totally unreasonable to have a wall that close to the kitchen window and block the light out even further.

MC:  officers have said it was a marginal decision.  On a technical note:  there are three other light sources in the room; would these be tested as well, to give a cumulative total?  There is also reflective light in the room, from the mirror, but that could be removed. 

MJC, in response:

-       Regarding the light test, understands where Members are coming from.  Officers made a judgment not to test the other openings.  As part of the light test, they need to work out how much light a window gets now, and how much it will get post development.  If that amount of light less than 80% of the original value, guidance says would be noticeable.  The test on the side window showed 75%.  On the other window, it would be 10% reduction – not appreciable to the naked eye.  The patio doors were not tested – won’t change enough;

-       the on-balance recommendation to permit is made in that regard; if the extension was reduced in size and set in, it would tip the balance more.  Officers’ view is that it is acceptable; they cannot prove beyond all doubt that there will be no impact, but base their recommendation on the facts as they see them.  They could argue the case either way.

GB:  if the wall is built, the neighbour will need the kitchen light on permanently, and this will be a clear loss of amenity.  Officers recommended on balance to grant permission, but taking in concerns about light in the room, this is enough to refuse the application.

PT:  proposed CP4 as refusal reason.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

1 in support

12 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

Vote on PT’s move to refuse on CP4

12 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

REFUSE