Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

MP: Introduced the application,she explained that the applicant was seeking permission for the provision ofpitched roofs on two semi-detached dwellings. The application was before the committee at the request of Councillor Barrell and Councillor Harman.  

Mr Boyle, neighbour in objection

Was the owner of number 11 Victoria Retreat and was speaking on behalf of all of those residents who would be negatively affected by the scheme. Whilst they understood the new for development they felt the proposal would have a negative impact on a number of its closest neighbours. He reasoned that an upward extension of over 2 metres would raise the building up by 40%, causing overshadowing and loss of light to a number of properties on Victoria Retreat. The Bath Mews properties already dominate the skyline to Victoria Retreat and currently block a substantial amount of sunlight form the properties, even with the 2 storey flat roof design.

He highlighted that a report on the original build acknowledges that there is already a breach of the 25 degree light rule and the new proposal would cause even more loss that would result in up to a 55% loss of daylight to the rear of a number of properties on Victoria Retreat. He stressed that this would disregard normal protections afforded by CP4. He noted that section 118 of the NPPF encourages the support of proposals that use the air space above existing residential and commercial premises for new homes, however, reasoned that as the proposal was not creating new homes it did not fall in to this category. He felt that the height of the extension was oppressive and overbearing in a tightly packed area and would encroach on the privacy of neighbouring residents. The lack of privacy would extend to those on Commercial Street who would be overlooked by windows and a roof top terrace. He also had concerns that this would set a precedent for future development that could lead to an even greater loss of amenity character of the area.

Mr Everit agent in support

He highlighted that an application for an extension was made earlier this year, however, that application was withdrawn following feedback form the local authority that the proposal was potentially overbearing and likely to have a negative impact on some of the adjacent properties. He confirmed that following consultation with the Local Authority, they had revised the scheme so that it was more of a traditional form which would help to reduce its impact on the locality. The proposal now comprised a pitched roof form so it would significantly reduce the amount of shadow cast compared to the flat roofed scheme. The pitch had been kept shallow to keep the ridge height low and due to the elevation of the sun when it is to the south of the site, the shadow cast to the north of the site would be no greater than the shadow cast by the existing parapet wall for the majority of the year.

He confirmed that the gable ends of the extension were now a continuation of the existing rendered gables ends and as such, the property appears as a two storey building with a pitched roof rather than a three storey flat roofed structure. All of the windows proposed in the rooftop structure had been carefully positioned to ensure that they didn’t overlook the private amenity space of the adjacent properties. The only window facing Victoria Retreat was at the top of the staircase and they would effectively be high-level windows because when an occupant was passing them they would be at a lower level on the staircase. He confirmed that to further reduce any perceived sense of overlooking these windows had been frosted.

He explained that the windows to the new bedrooms look into a roof terrace and were clear glazed in order to provide natural light and ventilation for the occupant but they would have no outlook over any private amenity spaces relating to the surrounding buildings. The terraces would look over the car park and the flat roof of an adjacent property. He reasoned that there were many two storey buildings with pitched roofs in close proximity to the site and so felt the proposal was in keeping with its context.

He highlighted that since the officers report was written a number of supporting letters had been posted on the planning portal.

Cllr Harman

Noted that previously an application was submitted which has now been modified, the original application was originally recommended for approval until Councillor Harman  requested an officer visit the site and subsequently the recommendation was changed to refusal. He questioned whether the late representations received were a process of lobbying by the applicant as they did no live near the property. He felt that residents in Victoria Retreat and Commercial Street would be adversely impacted by the proposal and requested that it be rejected. His concerns were largely around loss of light and the fact it could potentially be part of a creeping process.

Member Debate

SW: Felt that aesthetically, the modifications would improve the properties. However, had concerns regarding  the loss of light and would appreciate an officer steer on these concerns. 

JP: Felt that the design was innovative and of good quality. Had concerns about the two small spaces on the North facing aspect and questioned whether you could access those spaces.  If so, he had concerns that this would  adversely affect the amenity of the residents in Victoria Terrace. He also had concerns about the light issue and sought clarity from officers on the matter.

DB: Felt that the design was an improvement on the original and was pleased to see obscured windows at the front. However, shared similar concerns about privacy and loss of daylight. She noted the neighbours concerns regarding 55% loss of daylight and asked for clarity from the officers as she believed this to be 25% which would be the same as the current situation. 

PM: He believed that in the summer months the sun would be sufficiently high so that the extension would not affect the residents to the rear. Similarly, it was his understanding that the ridge height would not cause the shadow but the end of the parapet.

MP in response:

·           Confirmed that the light test that they would carry out is the 25 degree light test so the parapet height facing the rear of properties in Victoria Retreat would stay the same as is now and the roof pitch behind it is at 25 degrees so by its nature it would not materially alter the existing situation. The reference to the 55% was looking at something different to the 25 degree light test.

·           She confirmed that the smaller spaces would not accessible, and as per condition 6, no access would be given to the flat roofed areas other than the balconies.

MC: Had concerns about the practicalities of construction works including where materials would be stored and how contractors would get access in and out of the site.

PB: Had concerns about the condition that stipulated the hours for construction and felt that 07:30 was too early. Requested that this be pushed back if the committee were minded to approve the application. 

SC: Felt that the design was innovative, although was concerned about how compact the site was and the proximity to Victoria Retreat.  He noted  that on the 3D sketch view which compared the existing situation to the proposed, it looked as if the shadow would extend further. He was also struck by the number of neighbours who had objected to the application. He noted that the reason it was a flat roof to begin with was because of issues of height so questioned why if it was inappropriate to put a pitched roof on in the first instance, it was now deemed appropriate.  

MP in response:

·           Confirmed that for this level of development, they wouldn’t expect a construction method statement, however, if Members felt it necessary they could ask the developer for details about the construction method and where they would store the materials.

·           The hours of work were taken from the council’s website and these were hours suggested by environmental health. They were not a condition just the recommended hours.

·           Couldn’t comment on the original application with regards to the flat roof and she was not the relevant officer.

MC: Agreed that they should ask the developer what they intended to do about things such as parking of contractor vehicles, storage of materials and deliveries.

PM: Shared similar concerns about the area turning in to a building site and causing disturbance to nearby residents.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit with a requirement for a management plan for the construction work

10 For

2 Against

1 Abstention

PERMIT