Agenda item

MP introduced this application for works to a GII-listed detached property on the north-west side of Tivoli Road, which is situated in a conservation area. The application for full permission and listed building consent is detailed above; there have been several revisions to address the conservation officer’s concerns. It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman, due to the neighbour’s concerns about the impact of the proposed garage on the three windows to the side of his property. The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Adam Fletcher, neighbour, in objection

Would like to reiterate his objection on diminished light grounds. Has been told by the officer that there are no grounds, as one window is the wrong type of glass, one is in the wrong place, and the third is shared. Members have visited and seen the impact the new building will have, not only on direct light but also on ambient and reflected light. That is a fact - even though no light survey or impact study has been done. Regarding the traffic, whether or not this is a problem depends on the vehicle numbers and types. The design will work with one or two cars, but will get difficult if it hits three; it is unfortunate that the drive is a first-in-last-out design. Regarding impact and amenity, this is the longest and highest construction to be built in the area in 52 years; is not an expert but feels that the frontage is abrupt, the main body dominating and the overall effect shape altering. Turning to the conservation argument, does not have enough experience or knowledge to form a meaningful take on the elements, but it has been pointed out that the garage falls within sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Local Development Framework for Tivoli. This seems to be the case – a conservation officer could confirm if it is. Leaving the final words to his late father - ‘Once the light is gone, it’s gone. That’s it’. There will be no opportunity to alter or modify once the work is done.

Mrs Nash, applicant, in support

Lives at 21 Tivoli Road with her husband and daughter. The existing garage is of poor construction, and is cold and damp. It has a corrugated metal roof and cladding on the side, with access via an unattractive metal door. It is too narrow, and detracts from the appearance of the house. Rebuilding it will enhance the house, and provide desperately needed space for a gym and to store her husband’s vintage car. The current garage is large enough for one car only. Her husband has early-onset arthritis and needs the gym; she and her daughter also like to keep fit. The new building will have a solid floor, not old timber. The vintage car needs to be kept in the dry, and a dry, secure space is also needed for storage of garden equipment and bikes. It is a beautiful house and the proposal is not unreasonable. It is for a single storey building in an unused space; cannot see it will have any impact on neighbours, but will make a big difference to their lives.

Member debate:

SW: has sympathy on both sides here. Can see that what the applicant is asking for is, in many ways, not unreasonable, but couldn’t take her comments as great grounds for doing the work – though those are the reasons why they want to make the alterations. Has sympathy for the neighbour; the new building will be level with the top of his side windows, and very close and imposing. Has spoken to the officer, who has confirmed that an objection on the loss of light issue would be difficult to sustain – the objection is not strong enough to hold. As said, has sympathy with both sides, but in view of the above, must go with the officer recommendation.

PT: has a light test been carried out? Was it acceptable?

TO: looking at the neighbour’s kitchen on side visit, noted that there is another window at the back but this is not large. The effect of extended garage will have a big impact on the light in the kitchen.

BF: can officers please remind him which way do the three affected windows face?

MP, in response:

- The only window where a light test was carried out was the window on the rear elevation, which will not be affected by the proposal; windows which serve WCs and circulation space, as the side windows here, have no protection;

- The side window to the kitchen is a secondary window; the main kitchen window to the rear of the property will be unaffected by the proposal.

PB: both speakers made eloquent presentations, and this is a difficult decision to make. Can appreciate both points of view, but in situations such as this, Members have to make that decision on planning grounds. It is important that the objector doesn’t think that his comments haven’t been considered tonight, but Members have to consider planning laws as to what can and can’t be done. There are no planning grounds to refuse this application; has sympathy for the neighbour but must support the officer recommendation.

GB: agrees with this point, which is felt all round the Chamber. If he was living next door, would also feel that the proposal would affect the light to his home, but Members have to go by planning rules.

18/00127/LBC

Vote on officer recommendation to grant

13 in support

GRANT

18/00127/FUL

11 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT