Agenda item

Planning application documents

Officer introduction

The Planning Officer presented the application

Public Speaking

Mr Mike Spink, who lives in the next door property, spoke in objection to the application. Mr Spink pointed out that his property has a large window which faces south, towards the boundary with no 20, which is not shown on the plans and that the application doesn’t adhere to the 25 degree guidelines with respect to this window.  He also feels that a full-house height extension would be an overbearing physical presence and he also has concerns about the plans for a basement and the consequent disruption in terms of noise, mess, dirt and damage during the excavation.

Mr James Griffin from Zesta Planning Limited spoke in support of the application.  He confirmed that light tests have been applied and that development successfully passes the 45 degree test. It only fails the 25 degree test on a secondary side window to a room already served by two alternative windows.

Members questions

In response to questions the Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         The secondary window fails the light test by a significant amount but the patio doors are unaffected.  It is officers’ view that where there are two different light sources to the same room and one is unaffected, the impact on light in to the room is considered to be acceptable, taking in to account the scale and size of the room

·         The window in the other room shown in the photographs does pass the 45 degree light test

·         Due to Covid-19 restrictions, neither planning nor tree officers were able to visit the site and used satellite imagery to see where the trees are.  There is a tree protection plan condition given the distance to the rear boundary that the tree will survive with appropriate mitigation measures.

Member debate

·         There was support for the basement

·         There was concern about the failure of the light test on the south facing window which from a practical point of view could be considered as the primary source of light

·         There was concern about the size of the extension and the consequent substantial affect on the amenity of the neighbour 

·         There was concern that members were not able to do a site visit

After consulting with the Legal Officer, the Head of Planning reminded Members that, given they were unable to do a site visit, if they don’t feel they are in a position to make a definitive judgement on the information before them the options are that they don’t vote or defer to try and arrange a site visit or for the officer to take more photographs.  Members must be comfortable that they have enough information to make a decision.

The Legal Officer asked each Member if they had sufficient information before them in order to be able to make a decision on this application.

The meeting remained quorate and a vote was therefore taken.

Vote:

For:                  3

Against:           7

Abstentions:    2 

The Chair proposed that the rejection is based on CP4 local plan policy and JCS policy SD14 which both relate to impact on neighbouring properties.  The Planning Officer will constitute a refusal reason and send to the Chair and Vice Chair.

The Chair moved to a vote on refusal:

Vote:

For:                  9

Against:           0

Abstentions:    3

REFUSED