Agenda item

Public Speaking:

Mrs Cooper, neighbour, in objection

Began by saying she had not tried to prevent her neighbour from having an extension, despite the fact that it would be a great disadvantage to her.  Was simply asking for a slight alteration in the building materials to mitigate that disadvantage - these alterations would not affect the neighbour, as they would not be visible to her.  Said if the effect of the dark mass of the new building could be lightened with brick-coloured tiles that would merge with the red brick walls of the house and the new side wall coloured to match her own light patio paintwork, this would help considerably.  Said it wasn’t correct to say that she would not see the slate roof when sitting on the patio – the only way one wouldn’t see it was if you was lying on one’s stomach on the floor.  Thought this request should be a very minor matter to the applicant and the Planning Officer, in view of the loss of sunlight on her patio, lounge and hall, together with the feeling of enclosure in such a vital space, which she would suffer.  Had been told that the roof had to be slate because it is in a conservation area and has to be suited to the Victorian building, but did not see how the lower part of the extension – a pleasant modern design with a flat roof – fitted in with the Victorian ideal, adding that this would be visible from most directions.  Could not see why brick-coloured tiles, out of sight to anyone but her, would be a problem.  Had also been professionally advised brick-coloured tiles rather than slate would not reduce the value of the applicant’s house.

Dr Jelly, applicant, in support

Was very keen to maintain good relations with Mrs Cooper and all her neighbours, saying that life too short not to do so.  Appreciates and respects the fact that Mrs Cooper has lived next door for a long time, and had therefore been sure to involve her in the planned development from the start. Had listened to her comments about the impact of the extension on her garden, and taken regard of this, altering the plans accordingly in the hope of avoiding the present conflict.  The planning agent Clint Jones had liaised with the planning department on the overall scheme and its potential impact on the neighbouring garden.  Had been happy to listen to the comments and attempt to reduce the impact, but struggled with the request to substitute the slate tiles for terracotta-coloured ones.  Thought these would look strange and out of keeping, and told Members that the planning officers could not accept this request either.  Said hers was a large property but configured in such a way that the lower ground floor is a separate flat, which means that the living space is relatively modest and an extension is the only solution the enable the family good access to the garden.  Had already listened to Mrs Cooper and changed her plans accordingly, and assure Members that if the proposal was permitted, she would continue to be considerate towards her neighbour.

Member debate

RG:  thought that in the spirit of keeping good neighbourly relations, Members should blame the Officers for this one.  Said Members had to take Officers’ advice that the materials requested by the neighbour are not suitable.

KS:  thought this was quite a tricky application, and hated the situation where neighbours want to have good relations and ward councillors wanted to be fair to both parties.  Asked if a flat roofed extension had been considered, as the height of the pitch would add to Mrs Cooper’s sense of enclosure.  Asked why it had not been thought appropriate.

GB:  was also ward councillor for this application, and faced with the issues, realised that the decision was going to upset someone.  Understood Mrs Cooper’s concerns, adding that there were many shades of grey – were any of these more suitable than others?

BF:  understood why materials in conservation areas can’t be changed and must be as near to matching as possible.  Hoped Mrs Cooper’s fears may be pacified when she sees the extension built.  Would not object if his neighbours wanted to build it, and as the applicant and her neighbour were two sensible people, thought the outcome would be alright in the end. 

PJ:  was interested to hear Officer comments regarding shades of grey for the tiles.

MP, in response:

-          to KS, said a flat roof was not considered as part of this application.  There had been a lot of pre-app discussion of the scheme with a pitched roof with lowered eaves; said a flat roof would in fact increase the height at the boundary.

GB:  asked if there was a lighter shade of grey to reduce the impact without compromising the conservation area.

HM:  asked if slate is one standard colour or whether there are different shades.

MP:  said there was not a lot of difference in the colour of slate tiles – they are slate grey.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

0 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT