Agenda item

CD: introduced the application as above, to create a single storey extension to the rear, and Juliet balconies, to a detached residential property. It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman.  The recommendation is to permit for the reasons as set out in the report.

Public Speaking:

Mr Calvert, neighbour, in objection

Thanked the officers and the committee Members for looking at the proposals from their homes and gardens. He explained that they were pleased the plans had been revised with the omission of the roof terrace and they were fully supportive of the conditions suggested. He explained that they did, however, still have concerns about the impact of the proposed extension, materials and the inclusion of doors and Juliet balconies at first floor level. He stressed that they were not opposed to the principle for the extension and believed overall that it was a good design.  However, felt that with a few minor tweaks they could ensure that the amenity and enjoyment to their homes was less impacted.

He confirmed that the extension was 4.2m in depth at the north elevation and would impact on the amenity they had enjoyed for the last 9 years. He highlighted that loss of light, sunlight and an increase in overshadowing to the main living areas, lounge, dining room and patio, would also occur due to the orientation of their home. He acknowledged that one light test had failed when performed by CBC officers. He explained that at the South elevation, the proposed extension was 3.2m in depth and 2.7m high and less than 1m from the joint boundaries between number 16 and number 20, with a difference in the ground level of approx. 0.5m, with number 16 at the higher elevation. He highlighted that the proposal would be in the direct line of sight of the kitchen area of number 20 and so would be overbearing, resulting in a reduction of light into a main living area and therefore the loss of amenity. He felt that a reduction in the depth of the proposed extension would mitigate the effect to both properties, whilst still allowing number 16 to achieve their plans.

He highlighted that in this part of the Park Character Area of the central conservation area, all properties have red brickwork at the rear elevation and therefore, in order to protect the character of the area requested that this condition be applied.

He also had concerns about the balconies at the rear, which overlooked their property and resulted in a loss of privacy. Whilst recognising that this was a compromise to a roof terrace, he felt that there inclusion meant that the doors and balconies would be used. He advised that they had French doors at ground floor level, and unless restrained they swung open and slammed close in any slight wind.  He stressed that at first floor level this would happen and would be more of an issue; as such he suggested an amendment or condition be applied.

Member debate:

PM:  Questioned whether if this was just a ground floor rear extension, permitted development rights would allow it up to 4m, and as such, they were just discussing the additional 0.2 m?

DB:  Noted that one of the letters of objection referred to a ‘substantial lantern’ 1m above the level of the extension and queried what this was. She also questioned what condition had been applied to the glass doors on the first floor and queried the significance of the failed light test. 

CD in response:

-          Confirmed that a single-storey extension up to 4m would be acceptable under permitted development rights, however,  such rights had been removed for these properties;

-          She advised that the lantern was shown on the elevation drawings and was a roof lantern to let in more light;

-          There is no condition re. restraining doors, as mentioned in the neighbouring letter;

-          Regarding the light test, she explained that these are done on floor plans and elevations and the proposal failed the light test on the floor plan but passed on elevations, and therefore passed overall.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT