Agenda item

1701521/FUL 32 Noverton Lane, Prestbury

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01521/FUL

Location:

32 Noverton Lane, Prestbury

Proposal:

Replacement of single storey side/rear sunroom and internal alterations (retrospective)

View:

View

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Defer

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

 

HDJ introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Payne, due to the potential harm it will cause to the the neighbour’s amenity – being overbearing and causing loss of light.  The sun room has been built with a 300mm parapet wall, and this application seeks to reduce that to a 28mm coping stone.  Officers believe the impact on the neighbouring property will be negligible, and that the reduction of the parapet will improve the appearance of the extension.  The recommendation is to permit. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Councillor Payne, in objection

Members on planning view will have seen structure and may have wondered why he asked for it to come to Planning Committee.  This application has been fraught with problems all the way through. To give some context: the applicant bought the bungalow, made some modifications, including a new sun room following demolition of previous conservatory.  The plans for sun room were not shared with neighbour, which was sad, and regarding the design, the architect ignored the PD restrictions on the property.  The neighbour contacted JP when the east wall was being constructed higher and higher.JP  visited the site, took photos, talked with planning officers, who confirmed that there had been a breach of permitted development rights, and that the neighbour needed to talk to the enforcement team.  JP advised the neighbour, who did so.  Planning enforcement advice was a recommendation to read the government’s pamphlet on party walls – even though this not a party wall matter.  They spoke with enforcement officers who were not able to inspect the site due to resource issues – enforcement is not a quick fix.  Building work continued; the original drawings show what was proposed, which is not what has been built here.  The neighbours were anxious the light to their conservatory would be blocked off  - unfortunately, Members were unable to witness this on Planning View.  JP then wrote to the enforcement team, expressing his and the neighbour’s concerns and asking them to intervene; they visited that day, advised that the building had breached PD, and said the applicant should submit a new planning application.  A new application was submitted but the drawings were wrong and rejected by planning officers.  The second drawings were correct, showing the relationship between sun room and conservatory.  Officers don’t agree, but JP and the neighbours still feel the extension is overbearing.  There are always winners and losers in planning - in this case, the applicant knows the neighbour is unhappy, and their neighbour knows that the applicant has used the system to build a bigger extension than permitted.  Would Members consider deferring their decision on this application, to see if any sort of compromise can be reached; what is proposed in inadequate and there must be a better solution.  Would like the applicant to be given time to look at that.

 

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  Councillor Payne has made a good case for deferral, for two reasons:  firstly, that this is a dog’s dinner.  The smallest applications often cause the most problems, and it is clear that this extension will be overbearing to the side and is unnecessarily high.  Unfortunately, Members couldn’t experience what the neighbours are experiencing on Planning View.  The decision should be deferred to give the parties chance for further discussions.

 

SW:  Members are told in training and at other times that they should always look at a retrospective application as if it were a new one.  If this was a new application and hadn’t been built yet, would not be happy with what is proposed – would suggest the sun roof was built to the eaves only.  The extra height is required because the level of the floor has been raised; has experience of the same situation in his own house when the garage was knocked through to the kitchen and the garage floor had to be raised for insulation, resulting in a low ceiling.  This doesn’t cause any problem, but in this case, reducing the parapet by a few inches will do nothing at all to improve the situation for the neighbours.  Would like to see the sun room reduced to the height of the eaves.  Agrees that it is a bit of  a dog’s dinner, and would therefore be very much in support of a deferral to allow time to reach a better compromise.

 

CN:  was impressed by Councillor Payne’s speech, and knows that deferral isn’t something that planning officers particularly like, but is minded to agree with what the two speakers have said so far.  The point has been made that Members couldn’t get access to the neighbour’s conservatory to view the impact of the proposal.  Has had a similar issue on his own patch, which emphasises how important it is to visit the site to get a proper view of the potential amenity issues.  Understands that light calculations have been done and suggest that the impact won’t be unreasonable, but the councillors present are on Planning Committee for a reason, and should be allowed to figure out for themselves the impact this proposal is likely to have on the neighbouring amenity.  It is a messy neighbourhood situation, and this is an opportunity to sort it out and reach a compromise, with which both sides will hopefully be happy.  Will vote in support of a deferral.

 

BF:   is open-minded about this proposal.  The wall is east-facing, so when the sun rises, it won’t cast any shadow on the neighbour’s room; the sun will then move east to west, which will also have no impact, and then set in the west, with no effect on the existing situation.  At certain times of day, the extension may cause minor problems with the light, but cannot think it will be anything major. If Members are to see the effect it will have on the neighbour’s light, there will be a very small window of opportunity when they can – a site visit would need to be arranged for this.   This proposal complies with planning guidance and the light test; cannot see the point in deferral.

 

HM:  can see the point in deferral.  Not long ago, Members were asked to consider an extension in Leckhampton; the officer report stated that there would be some reduction in the light to the neighbour’s window, but on Planning View Members could see that it would result in a considerable loss of light and refused the application on account of this.  It is important that Members visit the neighbouring property to see the impact of this proposal.

 

RH:  if this application wasn’t retrospective, would the officer have accepted the parapet height at 28mm?  Would it have been recommended for approval?

 

MJC, in response:

-       Regarding the suggestion of deferral, is not convinced that this will achieve anything.  Officers have had lengthy discussions with the applicant.  The result has been to reduce the height of the parapet by a couple of blocks.  Officers feel this is a sensible compromise, but even if the blocks were not being removed, the recommendation would still be for a retrospective approval;

-       Officers feel that there will be an impact on the neighbours but that this isn’t unacceptable;

-       Regarding the site visit, has sympathy with Members, that they weren’t able to access the neighbouring property, but also with the applicant.  The neighbour had the opportunity to allow a full site visit; the planning system aims to deliver results, and it is not the applicant’s fault if it can’t deliver;

-       Deferral should only be used when really necessary and when there is a possibility of improving matters.  When considering retrospective applications, planners have to consider the principle of proportionality – think about the level of harm against the amount of work the applicant would have to do to mitigate the harm.  In this case, do Members think the applicant should be required to take the whole roof off?  Officers feel that this would be disproportionate;

-       To RH’s question – would officers have accepted this scheme if it wasn’t retrospective? – that is hypothetical, and we have to consider the scheme before us now.  The key issue is proportionality, and that is how a planning inspector will look at it if it goes to appeal.  This is why officers have recommended approval.  There is no value in deferring.

 

PB:  appreciates the proportionality argument, but if the applicant hadn’t done the work before getting permission and had followed the correct process, we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.  It is right to consider deferring the decision on this scheme; it will give Members an opportunity to look at the situation from the affected property, as officers couldn’t arrange it for this month’s planning view. 

 

RH:  regarding the height of the wall and the parapet, was 300mm the original parapet height or is this a compromise?  Is there any opportunity for it to be lower still?

 

MJC, in response:

-       The original scheme proposed a 300mm parapet; the applicant suggested taking out a couple of blocks,  and replacing these with a 28mm coping stone.  It cannot be reduced any further into the roofing structure without taking the roof off and reconfiguring the whole thing;

-       To PB, yes it’s true, the applicant undertook this work at their own risk, but the planning system doesn’t exist to punish people;

-       Regarding visiting the neighbouring property, Members are responsible to their constituents, which is why planning committee and planning view exists. Planning view is useful for Members to get a full picture, but can also be dangerous.  Officers don’t necessarily know which residents are keen for their properties to be visited and taken into account; sometimes it is obvious, sometimes not.  It isn’t fair to put the onus onto officers; it is Members who call applications to Committee, often following their discussions with their constituents.

 

BF:  if we defer, future consideration of this scheme hinges on witnessing the over-shadowing of the house next door; Members will have to visit at a specific time – it will be difficult to appreciate in winter, and there may be nothing to witness.

 

CN:  following on from MJC’s comments, if the proposal is deferred, can Councillor Payne do his best to make sure Members get access to the property next door before it comes back to Committee?

 

Vote on PB’s move to defer

8 in support

4 in objection

DEFER

 

Supporting documents: