Agenda item

GD introduced the application as above with a recommendation to approve for reasons set out in the report. It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman.

Public Speaking:

Miss Vincent, neighbour in objection

She reported that when she had come back off holiday in July, she discovered that the extension had been built. The applicant had not submitted any plans, nor afforded her the opportunity to consider the design before the work commenced. The neighbours to the right had also not been served with a Party Wall Agreement. The objector was shocked by the speed and size of the building which was very invasive. She advised that once the applicant did retrospectively submit plans, they did not reflect what had been built and the extension was 300mm higher and so revised plans had to be submitted. She questioned the applicant’s credibility given the fact he had been a Building Contractor for over 20 years. Miss Vincent explained that she had no problem with the applicant wanting to build an extension but had issues with the design; she noted Local Plan policy CP4 which seeks to ensure that new developments do not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity. Her issue was with the side elevation, which is around 3.5m and has bi-fold doors that face her property.

The side elevation is also less than a metre from the boundary of her property. She felt that the glass being used was irrelevant and that during the summer months the doors will be open, encroaching on her own home. She reported that the recent extensions in the immediate vicinity all have solid wall side elevations. Whilst she accepted that Tivoli is a dense and compacted grid of terraced houses she still felt residents were entitled to reasonable privacy. She urged the Committee to not allow the applicant’s plan to be the new blueprint for this special Conservation area and requested that at the very least the committee instruct the applicant to brick up the side elevation as a faircompromise.

MC: Found it difficult to see how the applicant believed the extension to fall under permitted development, particularly given that by trade he was an experienced building contractor. He queried whether officers would have permitted the extension if it had come before them as a new application.

DB: Also very unhappy about the retrospective planning permission. She felt that the extension had an unsightly chunk of roof and was unhappy about the glass side elevation.

PB: Sympathised with the neighbour and agreed that the large opening doors on the side elevation infringed on her property and would be a particular problem during the summer months when they would likely be open. Suggested that the application be deferred and a conversation be had with the applicant, neighbour and officers to find a satisfactory solution for the neighbour.

SC: Also failed to see how the applicant believed the extension to be within the permitted development rights given its size. Agreed that the bi-folding doors to the side would impact upon the neighbour and cause noise disturbance, would have no problem with the development if the bi-folding doors opened out towards the garden.

SW: Failed to see the issue until the Councillors went on the planning view and now sympathised with the neighbour, particularly as the extension was within 1 meter from the boundary. Whilst he did not find the flat roof particularly aesthetically pleasing, he did not see this as a reason to object. Agreed with Councillors Cooke that if the doors were facing on to the garden there would be less of a problem, however, in its current state, he would find it difficult to approve the application.

JP: Agreed that it was a very inconsiderate development and had been alarmed at the depth of the extension which he deemed overpowering and unnecessary. Agreed that deferral may be a sensible to allow all interest parties to come to a sensible solution.

DS: Felt that the extension was too large for the area given that it was 30cm too deep, the side was a meter wider than the house and the height was also unsatisfactory.

KH: Agreed with Councillor Cooke that the problem was exclusively with the side part of the extension. Sympathised with the objector as he noted in areas of such housing density you could often hear your neighbours, which can make living in such areas extremely challenging. He acknowledged that it was not the committee’s duty to re-design the scheme but queried whether they could ask the applicant to reconsider the side part of theextension.

GD, in response:

-                     The applicant believed the extension to be within permitted development and once the enforcement team had become involved and invited an application, works to the extensionceased.

-                     If the application was to come before officers as a new application they would look to supportit.

-                     Officers had proposed that the applicant remove the doors to the side elevation from the scheme, however, they wished for the committee to determine the application as it currently stands.

-                     The application was compliant with policy SD4 of the JCS with regards to noise disturbance.

-                     The extension was 50cm deeper than permitted development but compliant in terms of its height.

PB: Wished to pursue his suggestion of deferral as the development would be more acceptable if something was done with the side elevation.

SM, in response:

-                         Whilst it was within the committee’s gift to defer, they needed to be mindful that they risked the applicant appealing on the grounds of non-determination.

MC: Deferral would be the sensible way forward as would vote to refuse if not deferred. If they permitted the development people would lose faith in the planning system as the correct process had not been followed.

DP: It was clear that the applicant and the objecting neighbour were not on good terms. Did not see the benefit of deferral. It was clear given the applicants jobs that he knew the development was not within permitted rights.

Vote on proposal to defer:

6 in support

5 in objection

1 abstention

Deferred