Agenda item

HDJ introduced this retrospective planning application for further extension, which was deferred in October to allow Members the opportunity to visit the neighbouring property and witness the effect of the extension on the sunroom.  There are no changes to the application, and the officer recommendation remains to permit. 

Public Speaking:

Ms Unett, neighbour, in objection

Owns the connecting semi-detached bungalow – has lived there for 13 years.  The sunrooms are adjacent, separated by just over a foot, originally built in similar styles to give balance and consideration to the rotation and reflection of the sun.  The new structure at No. 32 raises the adjacent wall by over 4ft, resulting in a looming wall which blocks the sun and makes her conservatory redundant for much of the year.  During the summer shadow is cast over half the conservatory, leaving the sofa in constant shade.  A conservatory is designed to benefit from the sun but this is being denied by this extension, with no consideration for the impact on her property.  The majority of the blame for this falls with the architect and builder, who have proceeded without checking or understanding building regulation requirements or the restrictions of permitted development.  The neighbours are also accountable for ignoring neighbourly consideration.  The council’s original advice was not to do anything but to let the process take its course, which was extremely difficult advice to follow.   Seeing the building develop daily while waiting for planning enforcement to attend the site and deem that planning permission was required was excruciating and has led to the current situation.  For this reason, CBC planning enforcement team is equally responsible with the architect and builder.  They were first notified 24 hours after the initial wall was built, but turned up two weeks later when the structure was complete.  Both she and the applicants have been failed by the system.  Is not opposed to development within reason, but this is unnecessarily intrusive and has been constructed with no consideration for her adjoining property.

Mr Tucker, on behalf of the applicants, in support

Is speaking on behalf of his parents-in-law, the applicants, to put over an accurate representation of the situation.  The extension at 32 Noverton Lane was well considered, taking into account numerous extensions of a similar type in the area, and to achieve one consistent floor level throughout the bungalow. A trusted draughtsman and local builder with good reputations and skills were employed, who have done their jobs to the best of their ability. The ground slopes away from the front of the bungalow to the back, and the previous structure had a poorly designed sun room, with damp and subsidence problems, as well as a dangerous one-foot step down into it from the back bedroom, making it difficult for the owner and any future occupants to move around safely.  The height of the ceilings had to be balanced to match the rest of the bungalow.  Before building work started, the neighbour was approached and made aware of the proposed plans.  There is no reduction of light to her sunroom, and no compromise in her privacy; her position has been discussed with care and consideration by the family, who care how she feels.  The applicants are happy to reduce the parapet, and want to install a system so that any waste water from the roof will not run off between the two properties or onto the sunroom next door.  Understands that the neighbour is currently looking at an unrendered structure, but once it is finished, it will blend in seamlessly and never be seen from the front or side of the property.  Once it is painted white, it will offer more illumination to the neighbouring sun room.  Is looking for a definitive solution today, so everyone can move forward, and the applicants can move into their new home without undue street of anxiety. 

Councillor Payne, in objection

At the last planning committee meeting, Members agreed to defer their decision, and have now heard from  both sides, which explain the situation better than he can.  Had hoped that deferment would result in the two parties reaching an agreement with each other, to find some way to settle the problem, and has met with both the applicants and the neighbour in an effort to explore the options available.  Agrees with the first speaker that the builder has to be culpable for the error in construction, but the process that has brought us to this point also has to be examined closely. Neither party has been served well by CBC officers.  Planning enforcement officers did not respond appropriately when the neighbour originally alerted them, and by the time they did, the building had been built.  Had hoped that Planning Committee would have a better idea of what remedial actions could be taken, if appropriate and proportional.  Was concerned by an email sent by a planning officer advising not to proceed obtaining costs – understood that the whole point of deferment was to obtain a proportionate response.  Planning Committee Members don’t know the implications if they approve or refuse the proposal – this has happened time and time again, and we need to look at the process.  Both sides have put their case well tonight, and now the Committee must decide the outcome.  The interference of officers has not helped. 

Member debate:

CN:  both speakers have provided interesting input.  Is concerned about the enforcement issue.  Has no gripes with the officers themselves, who do a very good job, but the issue is with their workload – there aren’t enough officers to respond rapidly.  Would like to ask the Chair to consider writing a letter to the leader about the issue – depending on what other Members of the Committee feel – emphasising the importance of recognising the issue of the shortage of enforcement officers.  Councillor Payne mentioned that he hoped deferral would allow the opportunity to look at remedial actions and costings, which could lead to reconciliation of the two parties – this is always better than a blunt decision.

GB:  has noted CN’s comments.

BF:  Members have viewed this site twice now.  The east-facing wall which is being disputed will be reduced in height and white rendered; there will be a gap between the extension and the neighbouring conservatory.  Went into the neighbour’s conservatory; an uplighter was on, and when this was switched off, there was little or no shading from the other side of the room, on the application side, where the conservatory was built under the neighbouring guttering.  The conservatory faces east and the sun comes in from the west, so a little shading will be caused.  Couldn’t witness this on Planning View as it wasn’t a sunny day.  Members have to make a judgement on what they saw, and he saw more shading on the left than on the right.

DS:  is not happy with retrospective applications.  On Planning View, felt oppressed when viewing the wall next to the conservatory, and the intention to lower it by 300mm is not enough – it needs to come down further.  Is not happy about the punitive aspect of this, but the whole structure is imposing and something drastic needs to be done to allow light into the neighbour’s conservatory.

SW:  agrees with DS.  Stood in the conservatory on Planning View and understands what BF is saying, but the photographs show the situation on a sunny afternoon and it is clear to see that there is a shadow.  It is a north-facing conservatory so will never be bright and sunny, but the difference in height isn’t marginal – it is considerable.  Somewhere along the line, someone could have done things differently.  When his own kitchen was extended into the garage, there was a height difference, and a choice to be made – to remove the roof and rebuild, with a step down, or have a lower ceiling.   Eventually went for a compromise, resulting in the ceiling of the new part of the kitchen being lower than the rest.  This is not unacceptable, and similarly in this case, the applicants could have gone for a lower ceiling or step down.  The point that gets him is being told time and again that retrospective applications must be viewed in the same way as a new application.  If this was a new application, would not put his hand up in favour – it doesn’t look right and harms the neighbour’s amenity.  There could have been several good solutions, and will therefore struggle to vote in support. 

KH:  in the interests of brevity, agrees with all DS’s remarks, which DS put better than he could.

MJC, in  response:

-       addressing an issue raised by one of the public speakers,  no planning officer would ever stop an applicant from doing something – they cannot do this.  Planning officers can only give their professional advice, and in this case, they advised that the applicants shouldn’t touch the structure following the last Planning Committee, as the decision had been deferred pending a site visit for Members to view the effect from the other side of the fence;

-       the planning team would never say ‘don’t do this’ – it is not in our gift.  Everything is done in the interests of transparency, and officers wanted Members to see the site exactly as it was when the application came to Committee last month;

-       officer advice remains as it was last month – yes, there is an impact on the neighbouring conservatory; the development next door will have a limited effect on the amount of sunlight entering the conservatory, which will change with the seasons and with the time of day, but not so significant as to warrant refusal of planning permission;

-       planning officers are relaxed about what is on the site.  It is an unfortunate situation, but a Planning Inspector is likely to be clinical in his or her deliberation, with proportionality as the main consideration – would removal of the roof be proportional to the level of harm?  Officers feel it would not. 

PT:  wasn’t going to speak, but is a bit concerned.  Sometimes planning officers view things from a highly professional angle and lose the human aspect.  We are talking about this lady’s home, where she lives, and spends a lot of time in her her conservatory.  Disputes the officer’s comment that there will be no significant harm.  It is disgraceful, and officers can’t empathise with the neighbour but can with the applicant.  Will vote against, and hopes someone will be able to find a solution which is better for both parties.

GB:  hopes that officers always work in a sympathetic and professional way.  In this case, it is up to Members to make the final decision.

CH:  is happy to accept planning officer advice regarding the light.  This application is similar to one in Giffard Way, and  proportionality is the main consideration.  Agrees with a point raised by a number of councillors, that if this proposal was presented in the first place, would not have been comfortable to agree with it – the extension is overbearing and will have a big impact on the neighbour’s property.  The proposal could be refused on design grounds, and for the overbearing impact it will have on neighbouring amenity.  Is minded to refuse.

GB:  Members needs the wisdom of Solomon to decide this one.  It was clear on Planning View that there will be an impact on neighbouring amenity, but the officer view is that it will be hard to defend a refusal at appeal.

BF:  officers have clearly said that there is nothing from a planning officer point of view to justify refusal, if this was a new application.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

5 in support

7 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

Vote on CN’s move to refuse, on CP4 and CP7

7 in support

5 in objection

1 abstention

CARRIED - REFUSE

MJC, in response:

-       feels that officers can phrase a refusal reason on these issues – one drives the other.

SW:  thanks to MJC for this statement, which will involve working against his original view to word a refusal. 

GB:  a sign of true professionalism!