Agenda item
24/01670/FUL - 68 Sandy Lane, GL53 9DH
Minutes:
The senior planning officer introduced the report as published.
There were two public speakers on the item; the objector and the applicant’s representative.
The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:
· They are representing the concerns of 70 Sandy Lane and 1 Hartley Close due to concerns about the disproportionate size of the roofand the adverse impact of the enlarged reoriented balcony.
· Previous planning applications for the addition of a hipped roof on the property were rejected due to issues with subservience and harm caused to the street scene and character of the area. This led to a contemporary design with a 400mm height increase which was also rejected by the Committee during a retrospective application submitted during construction. These decisions robustly tested and set the acceptable extent of development.
· The current proposal will add 3.4m to the height of the roof, increasing the dominance and bulk close to the boundary with 70 Sandy Lane.
· The proposed design will be far larger and more dominant than other properties in the area and will be out of character with its surroundings and in conflict with policy D1.
· The report states that subservience is no longer a consideration as it deems the proposals to be a replacement dwelling rather than an extension or alteration. However, the footprint, layout and windows remain the same and the application described the proposal as an alteration. This does not meet the requirements of policy H1. Allowing amendments to be considered as new dwellings to avoid policy requirements on subservience risks setting a harmful precedent for future large extensions.
· The proposed balcony will double in size, projecting outwards and reorienting towards Leckhampton Hill. Unlike the existing Juliet balcony this would provide 10m2 of space to accommodate a table, chairs and a sofa. Enabling the space to be used for socialising will dramatically increase overlooking with direct sightlines into neighbouring gardens. Case law fully supports the principle that if some overlooking exists, reorienting and intensification must be assessed for additional harm. With increased balcony use becoming more frequent, the use of our private patio space will be negatively impacted, which should be protected by policy S1.
· The report misapplies the window to boundary standards to a balcony, which does not align with established planning principles. Case law establishes that balconies cause greater harm than windows, particularly to private amenity spaces. SPD requires a minimum distance of 21m, with a minimum of 10.5m to boundary.
· Whilst we oppose the scheme in the current form we believe it is possible to reach a compromise by reducing the scale of the roof and adding screening methods to the balcony. This would alleviate the harm caused to the character of the area, the conflicts with policies D1 and S1, as well as protecting the privacy and enjoyment of neighbouring properties.
The applicant’s representative addressed the committee and made the following points:
· The property was extended in the recent past by the previous owners. Unfortunately this extension was not well constructed leading to the roof and other elements failing, including leaks, the cladding on the parapets coming away and the render on the chimney being blown. The application seeks to resolve these problems by introducing a pitched roof and overhanging eaves.
· The design arguably will improve the appearance of the property and the overall street. Some neighbours have welcomed the proposed design as shown in the representations.
· The footprint of the building has not been changed and whilst the roof height will increase, the slope of the street will keep it in line with the stepped rooflines.
· The hipped roof design means it does not appear bulky and by sloping the roof away from 70 Sandy Lane it will create more visual space for that property. 70 Sandy Lane was itself recently generously extended to within 1m of its other neighbour. The window facing 70 Sandy Lane will be obscured as it is for a bathroom.
· Sandy Lane and other local streets have significant variety in designs and sizes of properties, with many extended or rebuilt. The scheme will unify the design of the existing house and the range of designs locally will mean the proposal is not out of place.
· The existing balcony to the rear of the property is not a Juliet balcony and whilst the proposal increases the depth of the balcony it will also reduce the width, increasing the distance from 70 Sandy Lane. In that context the amended boundary has no greater impact from the existing and there is no conflict with policy or separation distances as confirmed in the report.
· Whilst Officer’s did not require the change, measures to address neighbours’ concerns through landscaping are a matter of ongoing communication.
· The report confirms the design is not harmful and complies with relevant planning policies.
The matter then went to Member questions and the responses were as follows:
· The balcony is increasing in depth by 1m but reducing in width and moving further from the boundary with 70 Sandy Lane. Given a balcony is already in place the Officer considered this to be a reasonably modest change.
· At the highest point of the hipped roof the increase will be 3.4m, the increase in the main ridge line running across the property is 0.8m.
· The report does not say that the application is being considered as a replacement dwelling, but replacement dwellings are referenced within the design section to offer the Committee alternative ways that alterations can be considered when remodelling is taking place rather than a more typical extension. Within the design guidance and SPD, subservience is used to consider extensions added to existing buildings, but where the property’s appearance is being changed fully it is considered within the street scene instead.
· The Committee will be approving the application as it stands before them so it would not be possible to reject individual elements such as the balcony. If any element is considered unacceptable the whole application would need to be rejected.
The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:
· The balcony does not add to the visual quality of the design and may be detrimental to the neighbours due to increased use of the balcony space. However, as a balcony already exists the difference to neighbours would not be as extreme as the addition of an entirely new balcony.
· The Committee were frustrated that the applicant had not made greater efforts to resolve neighbours’ concerns through the inclusion of a screen at the end of the balcony. The inclusion of a 2.8m fence panel and some proposed landscaping was noted but due to the inability to condition these elements Members felt this was not guaranteed to be to the sufficient benefit of the neighbour.
· The addition of a pitched roof makes sense due to the current roof leaking and would look more in place within the street scene. Overall the design was felt to be acceptable. However, the scale of the roof was felt to be out of proportion with the street and the smaller neighbouring property. Particularly due to the prominence of the site on the corner of the road.
· Committee Members expressed concerns about the balcony changes, noting it would become a usable living space. There was debate about whether the balcony could be considered separately from the rest of the application, though it was clarified the application had to be considered as a whole.
Councillor Baker proposed a motion to defer the application to allow further discussions to take place on the design of the balcony due to the loss of amenity for neighbouring properties. This was seconded by Councillor Clark. Officers noted that they did not feel this would lead to additional amendments from the applicants.
The matter then went to the vote on Councillor Baker’s motion:
For: 4
Against: 4
Abstentions: 2
The Chair’s additional vote went against the motion and the motion was rejected.
The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit subject to conditions:
For: 5
Against: 1
Abstentions: 4
Voted to permit subject to conditions.
Supporting documents:
-
68_Sandy_Lane_24_01670_FUL_Report, item 10.
PDF 166 KB
-
68_Sandy_Lane_24_01670_FUL_Representations, item 10.
PDF 368 KB
-
Addendum Report 6d, item 10.
PDF 354 KB
-
Planning report observations 68 Sandy Lane 17.12.24 (2), item 10.
PDF 58 KB
-
68_Sandy_Lane_Letter_of_Support, item 10.
PDF 4 MB
-
68_Sandy_Lane_24_01670_FUL_Presentation, item 10.
PDF 2 MB
-
Comment for 24 01670FUL, item 10.
PDF 457 KB