Agenda item

MJC introduced this retrospective application to regularise works as built.  Planning permission was obtained for a single storey extension with a platform area, but this had to be built larger than approved because of land levels at the site.  The recommendation is to approve, subject to a condition covering privacy issues.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Stennett.

Public Speaking:

Mrs P Kennard, neighbour, in objection

Lives in the house next door, and understands that the retrospective application has to be considered in its own right.  Told Members it became clear that building work on the original application was going off-plan, and had referred back to the plan and worked hard with the builders to minimise the effect on her property.  Disappointed that planning officers consider a privacy screen to be a solution, as this will be detrimental to her amenity, with loss of outlook from her kitchen – she won’t be overlooked, but neither will she be able to see out.  In the report update of 11^th October, there are two outline solutions, at Paras 1.2 and 1.3 – asked for clarification of this, and how the condition would be enforced.  Also concerned that a future resident of the house could take down the privacy screen.

Mr Tom Banwell, applicant, in support

Has never taken on a project such as this before, and having secured planning permission to extend his property by an additional foot, agreed with the neighbour not to build the full extent of the approved square footage, and stopped the builders while they were digging the footings to appease her concerns about loss of light and view and maintain a good relationship. The raised step at the rear of the house is needed to enable safe access to the garden; obvious practical and health and safety considerations were overlooked in the original step design, and if it was smaller, someone could trip and fall down into the garden or up into the glass doors, which would be more dangerous if items were being carried.  The wider step allows a person space to fall to their knees instead.  The 90cm bi-folding doors require at least 1m depth to enable opening and securing without the need to step down and back up again, and the area isn’t large enough to be used as anything other than a step to reach the garden – there is no room for table and chairs.  Similar permanent raised decks, a large conservatory and a significant raised patio have all been built or approved within the same terrace, and in all cases, side fences have been installed to offer screening and a reasonable level of privacy.  Understands that the neighbour is concerned about overlooking, loss of privacy and increased noise, but even prior to refurbishment, there has been a direct sight line from inside their kitchen into the neighbours’ garden, and the neighbours’ view back into their kitchen.  Bearing in mind the fact the extension has not been built to the full extent of the original consent, the working action of the doors, and the obvious health and safety concerns, hopes that Members will see it as a reasonable compromise to permit the steps retrospectively, with the condition that a privacy screen be installed to eye level to overcome the neighbour’s objections.

Member debate:

RG:  the question with retrospective applications must always be whether the officer would have permitted the proposed changes on the original application had they been included.  The report doesn’t answer the question as to whether this extra bit of concrete would have been allowed first time round.  Accepts the applicant’s arguments regarding the folding doors and health and safety, but is concerned that the neighbour is affected by additional building in their back yard.

LG:  this is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  Agrees with RG’s point and doesn’t know if the raised patio area would have been agreed first time round, but it is now constructed, and an appeal would be successful.  Notes from emails that the neighbour has declined the offer of a privacy screen, because it will not be a thing of beauty and she will not be able to see across the landscape.  There are two conflicting situations here – the solution to the problem created by the additional patio is to put up a screen but the only person who is affected by it doesn’t want it.  This is an occasion when further talk between the applicant, neighbour and officer seems the most sensible compromise solution.  Will abstain from voting, as doesn’t see the point of including a condition which isn’t acceptable to the one person concerned.  Hopes the applicant and neighbour can get together with the officer and sort it out – the applicant could always put up a screen later without planning permission, so it would be better to thrash it out now.

BF:  other things than fencing can be used as a screen – plants, for example, such as jasmine or clematis, might be considered better than a wooden screen.

MJC, in response:

-          to RG, if the original planning application had been for the scheme as it is now proposed, the officer recommendation would have been the same – approval with a condition to contain views into the site.  The officer would have negotiated through the application as she had done with this retrospective scheme and proceeded in the same way;

-          LG makes an interesting point – the advice, as officers, is that where there is loss of amenity, this needs to be addressed.  If the permission is granted with a condition, the two parties can then discuss how to go about this and the local authority will have done the right thing;

-          to BF, a different type of screening can be used, but it’s up to the parties to discuss this – for the committee to do so could be seen as micro-managing;

-          where there is loss of amenity,  a privacy screen is generally the right solution,.  It should be remembered that although the current neighbour doesn’t want one, a future occupier may consider it to be necessary, and therefore the planning permission needs to ensure the inclusion of a screen.  There may be alternative solutions which can be discussed once the permission has been granted.

BD:  would a planning application be needed to put up a screen, or will it be left to the applicant to decide whether to put it up or not?  This is rather woolly.

MJC, in response:

-          to clarify, it is officers’ view that a screen is necessary – there will be loss of amenity and a screen is the appropriate solution.  The correct decision here is to grant permission with a condition to provide a privacy screen;

-          outside the planning forum, the applicant and the neighbour may discuss the matter and reach a different solution.  If this is the case, the authority will have nothing to enforce against, as it will not know;

-          if this is maintained for 10 years, it will become a default situation;

-          to reiterate, officers consider the right decision is to grant planning permission with a privacy screen.

RG:  thanked MJC for the clarification, and supports the application.  Was wondering whether there should be a condition to ensure that the raised step isn’t used as a patio area, but with the bi-folding doors requiring space to open, this is unlikely to happen.  Also wonders about a condition about noise, but thinks this is irrelevant in this case too.

LG:  agrees with RG.  This isn’t an easy situation, but if what MJC suggests is accepted, it should be possible to resolve it.  It shouldn’t be forgotten that if the conservatory had been built according to the original planning permission, there would be no need for a screen anyway.  There is therefore an obligation on the planning department to help resolve the problem.

PT:  looking at the photos can see that a screen with obstruct the neighbour’s view, but it is a fact that no-one has any entitlement to a view.  The authority needs to put in place the necessary permission and condition to show that we have fulfilled our obligation, and let the applicant and neighbour take it from there.

KS:  regarding the loss of view, asks when the loss of amenity aspect can be taken into account – even a clematis screen next to the kitchen window will give a closed-in feel.  Has to ask the question.

MJC, in response:

-          on planning view, Members went into the neighbour’s kitchen, and it is the officers’ view that the screen will have no additional impact on the loss of light.  As Members have said, the loss of a view is not a planning consideration.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

0 in objection

1abstention

PERMIT