Agenda item

Officer introduction

GD introduced the application as above; he explained that planning permission had been granted in 2018 for the demolition of an existing bungalow and erection of a contemporary two storey dwelling. The application was granted with a condition relating to the first floor windows to the north, east and south elevations. He advised that the applicant was seeking to vary this condition to enable two first floor windows to the east elevation to be side hung with restricted opening, both would be obscurely glazed and both served bathrooms. He confirmed that the original condition still applies to the other windows on the first floor. The recommendation was to permit as per the reasons outlined in the officer report. The application is before Committee at the request of Cllr Paul McCloskey due to the potential impact on neighbouring amenity.

Mr Hayward, neighbour, in objection

Mr Hayward explained that his objection was in relation to the upstairs window of Mr Unwin’s property that, when open, faces South and overlooks his garden. This could be evidenced by the papers submitted to the Council which show window A overlooking a large part of his rear garden, thereby reducing his privacy.  He informed committee that he had no issue with the windows opening north over the front garden with the restrictor at a maximum of 16cm, although he had been advised that the restrictors could be removed. He noted that Mr Unwin’s comment regarding the fact a man of average height could still look out of an open window above 1.7m make that type of window more of an objection. He therefore suggested that the windows opening as they are but facing north not south may be worth discussing.

Mr Unwin, applicant, in support

Explained that the window in its current state was a genuine error, however, he hoped that he could demonstrate that the existing window was on par with what the current conditions called for with regards to safeguarding privacy. He highlighted that the restrictors were permanently fixed with solid brass catches and were riveted to the outside window frame so would need to be mechanically removed from the outside. He noted that the current conditions placed no restrictions on the opening angle of the windows and that the view from both windows was limited to a driveway at the back and a private road to the front. He further noted that both windows were located in bathrooms with toilets in front of them making it difficult to lean out and due to privacy reasons they were unlikely to be near the windows. He highlighted that the house directly opposite had no windows of its own on the elevation facing his house and currently it was physically impossible to look into the gardens or houses of two of the properties that had objected. He noted that the current condition places no restrictions on how much the windows could open, only that it must open above 1.7meteres, he reasoned that if it was to be replaced with an opening of this height an average height person could look out unimpeded on to neighbouring properties anyway.

Member debate

TO: questioned whether the officers had been to site and seen the windows fully open? He noted that from the site visit the windows looking to the front didn’t seem to be a problem.

GD, in response:

-       Confirmed that the photos before them had been taken by the enforcement officer and they highlighted the extent the window looking directly towards the neighbouring property could be opened. As there had been no internal staircase Members had been unable to view the rear window during the site visit.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support

0 in objections

0 abstentions

PERMIT