Agenda item

Councillors Seacome and Hall declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and left the Chamber for the duration of this debate

MP introduced the application as above, adding that the existing garage is in an unusual location across the road from the house to which it belongs.  The garage is constructed of pre-cast concrete panels and an asbestos roof, and has no architectural merit.  The proposed garage will be brick-faced, with slate roof and timber doors, and will have a similar footprint to the existing garage, although it will be a larger building.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Driver due to concerns from the neighbours that windows in the side elevation will allow overlooking.

Public Speaking:

There was none, although the applicant had sent a letter in lieu of speaking at the meeting, and Members were given the opportunity to read this.

Member debate:

PT:  has two questions concerning the windows:  has a light test been carried out, and do they open or not?

RG:  made the point that two Members of his group have declared a personal and prejudicial interest because they know the objectors, but with names redacted from letters of representation, he cannot say whether or not he knows them himself.  One of the letters of objection quotes a former CBC planning officer’s comment that nothing should be constructed on this site, and his recommendation to refuse a previous, similar application.  It would be useful to know more about the history of this site.

JF:  notes the neighbours’ comment that the proposed building would be ‘ripe for conversion’ into a separate dwelling by the existing or future residents.  Can a condition be added to ensure that the permission applies only to the current owners to prevent this from happening?

LG:  this is partially covered by Condition 6, but maybe this can be strengthened.  Notes that that applicant has addressed these concerns in the final paragraph of his letter to Members on the blue update, but is worried about the term ‘ancillary’ in Condition 6.  Ancillary uses to residential use could cover a number of things which neighbours may well not want to put up with, such as loud music or workshop noise. Would like to see the condition strengthened.

MP, in response:

-          to PT, confirmed that light tests have been carried out on windows in the neighbouring property – they would not be done on the proposed windows – and also confirmed that the windows open outwards – they are Velux rooflights;

-          regarding the previous application, this was on a different, neighbouring site, and involved an extension to a property – there were very few similarities with the current proposal;

-          to JF and LG, Condition 6 requires the use of the proposed building to be ancillary to dwelling at 9 Eldorado Crescent, without adding any further restrictions.  ‘Ancillary’ covers any reasonable use of a garage in any location, so would include use as a workshop and allow a radio to be listened to – anything that would be reasonable for any householder to do in his own garage.

KS:  notes that the rooflights are 1.7m high and that the report states that there will be no overlooking, but the drawings indicate that some overlooking could take place.  Could this be possible?  Can Members be sure that it can’t happen?

MP, in response:

-          the drawing shows the sill height of 1.7m, which is acceptable for a high-level window.  If someone is standing adjacent to the window, they will only be able to see sky – unless standing on a chair or platform – and the view is never downwards into neighbouring properties.

PT:  does not want to contradict Officers, but has Velux windows in her attic - these can be opened and it is possible to look down through them.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT