Agenda item

Officer introduction:

EP reminded Members that this application was at Committee last month and was deferred, due to concerns over the scheme, in particular the bi-fold doors to the side elevation.  The applicant has revised the scheme, replacing the bi-fold doors with non-opening glazing, to be fixed shut.  This will avoid potential noise and disturbance from the doors being open and shut, and the officer recommendation is therefore to permit.

Public Speaking:

Neighbour, in objection

Is sorry that this application is back at Committee this evening.  Had hoped that last month’s decision would lead to a dialogue which should have taken place in the summer, before the extension was built without planning permission, and a solution fair to all parties could be found. There has been no negotiation or discussion, just an email from the case officer advising what the applicant intends to do. Members expressed significant concerns about the development and its impact at the last meeting, but none of the issues have been addressed by the applicant – the only alteration to the design is that the side windows will not be openable.  However, as the case officer states, a current or future owner could apply to remove the condition in order for these windows to become openable.  And with the large opening in the side elevation, there is nothing stopping anyone from opening the windows and turning them into bi-fold doors at any time – will live in anticipation of being in the same position all over again, needing the Committee or Enforcement Officer, if the work were to be done without permission, to protect her privacy.  This is not an acceptable solution, and cannot feel reassured by the current proposal in any way. 

Is at a loss to understand the necessity for 3.5m floor to ceiling windows in a side elevation, one metre from a 6ft fence.  How much light will this achieve?  There are other ways to maximise light without affecting neighbouring amenity.  This is the wrong design for a terrace.  There should be no glazing, bi-fold doors or large windows in a side elevation close to neighbour’s amenity space.  Its size, height, thickness and overhang of the roof less than 1m from her boundary, add cumulatively to the unacceptable impact of the development.  It fails Local Plan policies CP4 and CP7.  Asks Members to refuse the application, and not let this inconsiderate development set a poor precedent for the area.

Mr Potente, applicant, in support

Has 45 years’ experience in the building industry, and has gained respect and a reputation for working with honesty and integrity for a number of major companies.Has many glowing references which support and confirm this, and can be considered as testament of his professionalism and good character.  Has worked alongside these architects, designers, surveyors and project managers, but ,  planning and licensing applications are not part of his remit – apologies for his naivety regarding local planning regulations.  Did not intend to avoid planning, but believed the advice from a building inspector and acted in good faith.  On 23^rd June, invited neighbour at 1 Oakfield Street to look at plans for extension, showing the siting of the proposal to be carried out under permitted development.  The meeting ended amicably, with no objection from the neighbour.Has now considered the neighbour’s objections as follows:   regarding noise/smells from the bi-fold doors, will omit the bi-fold doors, reduce the structural opening by 50%, and fit a non-opening, glazed window to retain much needed light;   regarding the size of the extension, there are many similar ones existing in Tivoli, it is the safe roof height and projection as the adjoining neighbour’s extension.  In good faith, has no wish to cause neighbour any more noise and smell than any other single-occupancy resident, just everyday acceptable levels.  Finally, for clarity, has rigidly followed the advice of the officer in the amendments made, hence the recommendation to permit.

Councillor Harman, in objection

Thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak, saying that in his 6½ years as a councillor, this one of the most disturbing applications he has come across.  This is a retrospective application from an applicant with 45 years’ experience in the building trade who yet was not aware of planning rules – surely he should understand the system.  There was no consultation with neighbours before the first brick was laid, and hopes that Members of Committee who viewed the site on Planning View will confirm that this proposal has a significant impact on the property next door.  Retrospective applications are difficult, but this seems like a breach of faith.  So where are we from a practical point of view?  Would like Committee to have the courage to reject the application, not least to avoid giving the wrong signal to others, butif Members feel they must approve, they must look seriously at conditions for a long-term sustainable solution.  Is the proposal for window or door?  When is window not a window, a door not a door?  The proposed non-opening window would be easily converted into opening doors or windows, which would impair the neighbour’s privacy.  It would be difficult to realistically control whether they were opened or no.  Hopes Committee will not consider this proposal lightly; they should seriously consider a refusal or, if not, insist on conditions to protect the residents at No. 1 Oakfield Street from significant encroachment.

Member debate:

SW:  for clarification, was told on site view that the bi-fold door on the side were now to be windows fixed shut?  This was the main bone of contention last time.  Finds it odd that someone would want bi-fold doors on that face of the building - this is up to them but the imposition on the neighbour is not good.  Are the bi-fold doors to remain or be put elsewhere?

EP, in response:

-       The side elevation opening is the same as before, but the glazing is fixed shut and there is a suggested condition to control that.  The window is not capable of being opened.

DB:  is very disappointed that the applicant and neighbour have not been able to come to an agreement about this.  They have had no discussions on the subject.  Can officers confirm – are we still talking about separate glass panels or one piece of glass?  How easily can it be turned into doors or something that can be opened?

EP, in response:

-       The window is made up of individual panes of glass in frames.  They are fixed shut and non-openable, by condition.  If the applicant wanted to change this, he would need to apply to vary the condition.

BF:  paragraph 6.7 of the officer report quotes Local Plan policy CP7 that ‘the most important consideration is that an extension should not detract from the original dwelling’, and at paragraph 6.13 states that JCS policy SD14 stipulates that development should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties, supported through Local Plan policy CP4.  Privacy and adequate daylight are also two of the basic design principles of the SPD.  Still thinks that this proposal detracts from the neighbouring amenity.

MC:  having consulted with the applicant and given advice, has the applicant taken on board the advice given by the officer?  The officer talks about controlling the current design by condition, but exactly what words would form that condition?  Is seeking assurance that the condition will be enforceable.

PB:  the condition is in the report – ‘the proposed glazing shown to the side (north) elevation shall be fixed shut and non-opening at all times’.

MC:  but is this enforceable?  If so, by whom?

PB:  by this authority – planning enforcement officers – like any other condition.

BF:  would just remind Members that all conditions are appealable.

SC:  this is not only a difficult case but also a retrospective application.  Finds it astonishing that two people living so close to each other didn’t even discuss the proposal beforehand.  Has suspicions about the process, but the biggest bone of contention remains the side window in the north-facing wall, 1m away from the neighbour’s wall.  Finds this bizarre; it cannot be needed for light, on this north-facing wall.  If more light was needed, a roof light would be the obvious solution.  This extension is much larger than the house extends at the back; it should be subservient, but is as wide as the original house.  The proposal detracts from the amenity of the neighbour.  It is illogical to suggest the applicant has to have this window in this side for light.  Suspects there could be a hidden agenda, and it could be converted back to a door in the future.

PB:  it isn’t for Members to decide what the applicant wants, and there is no doubt that the proposed window will give light.  And Members should not let the fact that this is a retrospective application cloud their judgement.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

2 in support

7 in objection

2 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

PB:  as Members have voted against officer recommendation to permit, someone will need to move to refuse, with policy reasons.

BF:  suggests CP4 for the loss of neighbouring amenity, and CP7 for design – although this is also causing problems for the neighbour.  Is open to other suggestions.

EP, in response:

-       CP4  is concerned with amenity issues, and also design.  Members mentioned subservience, and scale of the extension in relation to the original house.  Amenity covers concerns about windows and glazing, and also privacy;

-       Loss of amenity and design are the two main issues – officers can craft refusal reasons around this.

Vote on BF’s move to refuse on CP4 and CP7

7 in support

1 in objection

3 abstentions

CARRIED - REFUSE