Agenda item

EP described the application, and said the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Heidi Jockelson, neighbour, in objection

The applicants have shown no regard for the effect on their neighbours during the development of these proposals, which threaten a massive intrusion into their privacy – there has been no acknowledgement of the adverse impact this substantial project will have, hence her strong objection.  The most contentious issue is the virtual doubling in size of the house, and the proposed two-storey structure almost 10m in depth, within 1m of the side boundary of her property – a vast expanse of solid wall which will swamp her home, causing serious loss of light.  This is exacerbated by the difference in ground levels between Downside and Waverley, resulting in a prison-like wall which she and her husband will have to suffer every day.  Trees in Downside’s garden already block out much of their daylight.  The current gap between the buildings is 7m, excluding garages; maintaining space between buildings and ensuring adequate daylight are basic design principles in a residential development.  Local Plan policy CP4 states that development will only be permitted where it will not harm neighbouring amenity, and neighbours are unaware of the applicant’s long-term plans – he appears to be solely intent on exploiting the maximum space available. 

This is particularly unedifying when the apparent pursuit of financial gain from property speculation by someone who has never lived at the house is placed before a family’s quiet enjoyment of their home next door, whose only home it has been for nine years. Her husband is virtually house-bound, suffering from advanced Parkinson’s Disease, and she is his full-time carer, as well as working from home in an office located in the converted garage. The outside wall of this will be severely affected by the proposed building works.  There are a number of issues relating to the proposed building work, including the garage and shared chimney of the gas boiler outlet which will require joint cooperation.  In view of the seemingly autocratic stand taken by the applicant, this could prevent problems which will be difficult to resolve. 

On a safety note, there is a primary school opposite the two houses, and already an ever-present danger to children from vehicles travelling too fast.  Construction traffic will increase this risk significantly. 

If permitted, this scheme could set an unfortunate precedent and threaten the maintenance of good practice in Battledown.

Mr Mark Underwood, on behalf of the applicant, in support

The applicants plan to extend Downside into a family home.  Personal circumstances are not relevant to the application, but in order to defend the defamation of character of the applicant, explained that he (the applicant) is unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to ill health which, combined with his own job which involves significant travel and time away from home, is the reason for wanting to move his wife and family back to the family home in Cheltenham.  The applicant’s wife and her brother grew up in Downside, and the family has lived there until recently, for over 50 years.  He was disappointed to lose the proposed car port and has made structural changes to the porch and reduced the extension to the rear west side after consultation with planning officers, and in line with current policy.  The reduction of the extension to the west was a response to the only objection of any merit from the owners of Waverly, but despite these amendments, they continue to object with no substance in terms of planning policy but simply out of resistance to change, which may be common but will hopefully not affect the Committee’s decision.  The planning officer confirms that the proposed extension is acceptable in relation to both neighbours with a feeling of space between; is acceptable in terms of street scene; complies with light testing; has no windows in the side elevation; has windows to the rear which achieve oblique views to the garden, usual in the area; has acceptable impact on residential amenities; is in accordance with policy relating to good stands of design; has adequate parking.  Plans to extend Downside into a modern family home, respectful of all planning policy and the local environment, and hopes Members will uphold the officer’s recommendation to approve.

Member debate:

PT:  asked for an illustration to show the house to be extended in relation to its neighbours. 

BF:  on Planning View, noted that these are currently linked houses with two chimneys.  If the application is approved, how this is dealt with during construction must be set out.  Will there be a single skim wall?

EP, in response:

-          the finish on the neighbouring property will need to be resolved, but this is not a planning issue – it is a civil matter, to be resolved by owners of the two properties.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

4 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT

CC:  said that if the neighbours were wondering why there was not more debate on this application after the lengthy discussion on earlier ones, they should know that Members visited the site on Planning View, had read the report and representations, and listened to what both speakers had to say. They must not think that the lack of a long debate meant that Members have not given due weight and thought to the application.  Thanked the neighbours for coming to the meeting.