Agenda item

EP introduced the application as above, which was deferred at the August meeting to allow for amendments to the single-storey side extension to be made – this was the only issue for consideration.  The applicant has now removed the double gable and replaced it with a single pitch roof.  Officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Richardson, on behalf of neighbours, in objection

Represents the interests of the residents of No 20, who object to this proposal because of its impact on the character of the area and on their property.  The proposal is not in keeping with SPD guidance, which states that the space between houses contributes to the character of the neighbourhood and highlights that a proposal which is too large for the site which may result in loss of light for neighbours, also stating that an extension shouldn’t dominate or detract from the original building.  The proposal will reduce the space between Nos 20 and 21 at second storey level, compounded because the proposal will extend beyond No 20 to the rear.  It is excessive, overbearing and will have a seriously detrimental impact on the residential amenity of No 20.  In addition, the proposed windows will look directly into the garden and back door of No 20, representing an unacceptable intrusion and loss of privacy. All those who have responded have objected to the application:  No 22 refers to the overbearing nature of the proposal, invading the privacy of the neighbouring property, reducing their sunlight, and removing the separation between the houses.  Does not consider the proposal has an acceptable relationship to the neighbouring property, as stated in the officer report, and notes that the officer goes on to confirm that the proposal will be overbearing and result in loss of direct sunlight to No 20.  The Building Research Establishment guidelines, on which the SPD is based, state that overshadowing of gardens and patios is a valid reason to refuse an application; the applicant hasn’t undertaken a BRE assessment, and the proposal should be refused, due to the overbearing nature of the two-storey extension and the resultant loss of sunlight to the neighbouring property.  The SPD is only guidance and the decision rests on the facts of the case.  As No 20 is over 20 years old, it has a legal Right to Light, which would be breached if this application is approved.  The application should be refused, and any future applications should exclude two-storey extensions to the western side.

Mr Sperring, applicant, in support

Purchased 21 The Avenue earlier this year with the intention of making a home for his young family in the parish where he and his wife were married and where his wife grew up.  The house was built in 1972 and has been little changed since then; it has three bedrooms and one bathroom, and needs an upgrade.  Has revised his plans twice, following neighbour objections to the new garage on the east side of the property and on advice from planning officers who wanted the two-storey extension to be more subservient.  These issues were addressed, and the case officer spoke with colleagues, and said she would recommend the new drawings for approval, as she has done.  Has made major changes to the original plans to take account of concerns:  removed new double garage, altered two-storey extension in a number of ways, set upstairs back from ground floor, set roofline down from the main house, removed the gable, and moved the extension back to make it subservient.  Residents at Nos 20 and 22 have raised concerns about loss of light; No 22 is 20 metres away and will suffer no loss of light, and the proposal complies with the 45 degree light test with regard to No 20.  The garden of No 20 is in its own shadow most of the day, and the proposed two-storey extension at No 21 will in fact cast a shadow over its own garden, not the neighbour’s. Following the last planning meeting, the plans have been revised again, and the roofline which was concerning Members has been replaced with a simple hipped roofline with a small window in the side elevation. The Avenue is characterised by large individual houses, which have had the chance to develop over many years, while No 21 has remained unchanged for more than 40 years.  The proposals have been redesigned in consideration of neighbours’ objections, will use matching brick and materials to the front and sides, and will improve the appearance of the house in keeping with others in the road.  Having compromised twice, and with the planning officer’s acceptance, strongly hopes the proposal will be approved today.

Member debate:

GB:  reminded Members that it was the side elevation and double room extension that caused them concern last month.

KS:  feels caught between a rock and a hard place here.  Appreciates that the applicant has made changes to the elevation which most concerned Members last time – the scheme looks better for it and it is not as jarring as it was before – but still feels that the two-storey extension will have an adverse impact on neighbours, and is worried that we cannot pursue this, as the applicant has done what he was asked to do to address Members’ worries. There are no planning reasons to refuse the scheme, but is still concerned about its design.  It is difficult for councillors – they want to give a balanced view and always hope that issues such as this can be resolved before applications come to Planning Committee.  Welcomes the changes.

MS:  was happy with the scheme last time, and it happy with it this time.

CN:  like KS, has outstanding concerns about the west elevation.  Sorting the east side was the main concern at the last meeting, but not the only concern.  Both KS and PB commented on the scheme at the previous meeting, raising issues including concern about the elevations, loss of space, impact on the view, and the different impression it will give to that side of The Avenue.  Several issues of concern at the last meeting have not been addressed at all.  Appreciates that the applicant needs to make changes, but this house has considerable impact, as the first house in The Avenue.  Remains concerned and would like to see another change: the removal of the two levels on the west side and retention of just a garage there.

PB:  finds this increasingly difficult.  Members consider a scheme for 650 houses one month, and this proposal the next, which will have just as much impact on the neighbour.  Has sympathy with the applicant – he has worked hard with the planning officers and changed his plans – but remains concerned as last time about the design and the impact on the neighbouring property.  Realises that once the house is improved, two or three years down the line we may wonder what the fuss was about, and is not sure that there are any planning grounds on which to refuse the proposal.  Would like an officer comment on the objector’s reference to the ‘right to light’ in the SPD, but will struggle to refuse this application.  However, notes that it is very close to the neighbouring property, and although it is only a comparatively small extension, the hours of operation in respect of building works could be critical here.  The applicant will understandably want to get on with the work if permission is given, so would it be possible to condition the hours of building operations via a condition?

EP, in response:

-          the point that must be remembered here is that the application was deferred for amendments to be made on the side extension, not because of concerns with the two-storey extension;

-          to PB, the right to light is separate from planning legislation.  The SPD has provision to assess the impact of a proposal on neighbouring property – this proposal complies with the light test and will have no significant impact. This can therefore not be used as a refusal reason;

-          to PB’s suggestion of a condition to regulate hours of work, this is not normally needed on household applications of this type, although an informative is sometimes included – usually setting out working hours as 7.30am-6.00pm Monday to Friday, 8.00am-1.00pm Saturdays, and no work at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.  An informative such as this can be included with this proposal if Members wish.

BF:  the officer has made it clear that the proposal complies with the SPD regarding light.  The scheme wouldn’t win a painting competition, but neither would the1970s house as it stands. It is no ‘grand design’, but will support the application.

PB:  informatives are only advisory and are worthless.  CBC has huge problems with enforcing, due to lack of resources, but if we can make hours of operation a condition, why not do it?  Proposes that we do.

EP, in response:

-          officer advice is that this proposal doesn’t require such a condition, and that such requirements would be onerous to the scale of the development proposed.

PB:  it will have a significant impact on the neighbours, and a condition would be minor compensation for the neighbours, allowing them to enjoy their gardens in peace on Saturday afternoons and Sundays.

GB:  notes there have been no moves to refuse, so proposes that Members first vote on PB’s move to include a condition regulating hours of operation, if the proposal is permitted.

Vote on PB’s move to include a condition regulating hours of building operations, as hours detailed by EP (above)

12 in support

1 in objection

1abstention

MOVE CARRIED

Vote on officer recommendation to permit with the additional condition regulating hours of building operations

12 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT with additional condition