Agenda item

CS described the proposal as above, which is at Planning Committee due to objections from the Parish Council.  The officer recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

Ms Helen Lucas, neighbour, in objection

Moved to the house next door 16 months ago.  Does not object to anyone wanting to extend their home, but is concerned about the scale of the proposed rear extension and the impact it will have on her living accommodation.  The applicant has reduced the height of the extension by 20cm, but it still remains 9ft high, 12ft long, and just 23 inches from her window.  It will overshadow the kitchen/diner, the only habitable room on the ground floor, where she spends a lot of time – and also the patio area.  Being on the south side, it will block out daylight and sunlight from midday until dusk, casting a shadow from October to April andblocking late afternoon sun in the summer.  A light test has been carried out, but this is not conclusive – it was not done on site, and the proposed extension will definitely make a difference.  Does not want to prevent the extension being built, but to make it acceptable.  A neighbouring rear extension is 2m high, has glass panels above and a sloping roof – this fits well and would be acceptable.  A comparison has been made by the residents at No 11 to the extension at No 10, but the extensions are different – this is not a like-for-like comparison.  The other extension is seven courses of brick lower, with a glass sloping roof.  Similarly, the extension at No 12 is lower, shorter and narrower, and is on the north side of the neighbour concerned.  Letters of objection outweigh those in support.  Regarding the garage conversion and insertion of a window on the ground floor, the terraces are not uniform but they are designed in pairs, and the addition of a window will affect the symmetry - No 7 will stand out and look inconsistent with the rest of the Close.  There have been many objections to this, citing the restrictive covenant which is intended to protect the Close from unreasonable building.

Mrs Louise Hooker, applicant, in support

Has lived in St Michael’s Close since 2007.  The current living space has become inadequate for her family’s needs and, not wanting to move and noting that four other owners have extended their properties without any issues, decided to explore extending her property and converting the garage.  Consulted an architect, who sought an early opinion from the planning department; spoke with adjoining neighbours who confirmed they had no objection, understood why the extension was needed, and were happy with the proposals.  Did not consult the management company at this stage, as planning permission would be required in the first instance and such an approach would have been premature.  Was astounded and upset when neighbours and the owner of No 10 registered objections.  There have been four similar extensions in the close since 2006, all without objection to the planning department or management company.  Her plans are consistent in size and scale with approved development and the design is the produce of cooperation with the planning office, amended to further address neighbours’ concerns.  The owners of No. 11 have confirmed no impact to their light or view from similar extensions at both Nos. 10 and 12.  Her garden, and that of her neighbour, are west facing and benefit from direct sunlight from midday onwards.  Cannot see how her proposals will impact on light, cause any shadow or impair views.  Many residents of the Close have adapted their garages as informal living space or utility/storage areas, and conversion of her garage will not contribute to the parking problem in the Close, as she will retain two off-road parking spaces for her one car.  Regarding the visual impact, the designs sit comfortably with the existing building and neighbouring properties, and the rear extension reflects work undertaken at other properties.  There will be no alteration of the current features, merely replacement of a garage door with a window consistent with those in the existing dwelling.  Believes her plans will enhance and add value to the appearance of the Close.

Member debate:

DS:  agrees with the first speaker.  Considers the rear extension could be approved at a lower height but cannot agree with the conversion of the garage.  The terraces were designed as a unit, and the proposal will destroy the look of the terrace.  Asks whether the application can be considered in two parts or has to be voted on as a whole. 

JF:  is concerned about the impact of the rear extension on the neighbours.  Went into the property on Planning View and noted how dark it will be.  The proposal will be detrimental to the neighbours’ living standards.  Cannot vote for it.

PB:  no-one objects to residents wanting to improve and increase their living accommodation but the issue here is scale and design.  Members have seen pictures which show how oppressive the outlook will be for neighbours; other rear extensions in the Close are not as obtrusive or overbearing.  Members who went on Planning View will appreciate the extent to which this proposal will impact on the neighbours.  It should be thrown out, and revisited, so as not to have such a significant impact.  St Michael’s Close is a nice development – its symmetry has not changed since it was built and is a real attraction of the Close.  This proposal would change that which would be a shame.  The rear extension will be overbearing on the neighbours’ key downstairs living area – it will have a major impact on the daylight in this well-used family area.  If this was a utility room it may not be quite so important, but it is a key living area.  The applicant should come up with something more considerate.

MS:  has similar concerns.  This very large extension will be clearly noticeable and may or may not have impact on the neighbours’ light, but his prime concern is with the removal of the garage - it will throw the Close into disarray.  If the garage has to be converted, the door should be kept identical and the two windows above used to provide the light – the architect could have come up with a way of converting the garage so that all the properties would remain similar.  Will listen to the rest of the debate, but is concerned by this proposal. 

AC:  would object very strongly if he lived next door to this proposal.  These are not big houses; the other extensions mentioned are more like conservatories, of glass and brick, and if this development was the same, would have no objection, but cannot support the great expanse of brick proposed.  Removal of the garage door will change the look of the close and be out of keeping.  Appreciates that the applicant wants extra bedrooms, but this isn’t the right solution.

PT:  also has concerns, and doesn’t understand how the photographs work – they don’t look right, and it isn’t possible to see where the shadow comes from.  The wall is high – this was evident on Planning View – and would be more acceptable if it was lowered.  The officers say that the proposal passes the light test – is the shading on the drawing accurate?  Regarding the garage, is surprised officers put this forward for approval in view of the appearance of the terrace and the whole area.

GB:  a few Members have made comments which suggest they are thinking of refusal, but no reasons have yet been put forward.

CS, in response:

-            to DS, the application has to be decided in full; part permission/refusal is not an option;

-            to the suggestion that the height of the extension should be reduced, officers have already obtained changes to the original proposal, and consider the scheme complies with CP4;

-            the proposal also passes the light test, and officers do not consider there will be any loss of neighbouring amenity;

-            it is worth mentioning permitted development rights here:  this property doesn’t benefit from PD rights but what is proposed is a common type of development with terraced properties, which can be built 3m high and 3m from the property’s rear wallwithout planning permission.  This proposal is 2.75m high and 3.6m long;

-            the proposal passes the light test comfortably with regard to No. 8, and acceptably for No. 7, so there is no amenity reason to reduce the height;

-            regarding the garage conversion, the original plan included a bespoke garage door, which officers felt to be rather contrived; they considered a simple casement window to be acceptable;

-            there is nothing in policy to say that terraces or semi-detached houses have to be symmetrical.  Although symmetry is a feature of this area, officers do not feel that a window will have a detrimental impact, whereas a bespoke garage door would look very different and out of place;

-            also, under permitted development, the replacement of a door with a window would not need planning permission in a terraced property.  As there are no PD rights here, it is up to officers and Members to assess the impact.

PT:  is a little confused by what CS is saying.  Are the applicants able to make changes whether Committee says yes or no?

CS, in response:

-                                      no, these houses have no PD rights, so any work to the property needs planning permission.  Members just need to remember that a 3m-high extension against the boundary of a terraced property wouldn’t normally require planning permission.

JF:  understands from reading the SPD on residential alterations and extensions that extensions must be subservient; this is not.  The SPD also states that extensions should not prevent adequate daylight from reaching neighbouring properties, but having been in the house next door, it is clear that the proposal would block out a significant amount of light.  Considers CP4 and CP7 to be grounds for refusal.

MS:  how much will the proposed extension project above the existing fence?  Will the neighbour still see a wooden fence, or just a brick wall?

JW:  did CS say the original design was reduced in size following officers’ suggestions?  If so, was the height reduced, and if so, by how much?

PB:  policy CP4(a) states that development must not cause unnecessary harm to the amenity of adjoining land users and the locality.

KS:  supports all that has been said, and hopes that the message goes back about the garage doors.  They are important to the look of this beautiful estate, and while sympathetic with the applicant, there must b a solution to introducing a study while keeping the garage doors as they are.  The proposal as it stands would detract from the development, and this is the strong message from the community, even though the officers don’t agree.

GB:  would JF like to specify CP4(a) as a reason to refuse?

JF:  yes, and also the SPD on Residential Alterations and Extensions, 2.1.2 (subservience), 2.1.5  (daylight) and 3.2 (rear extensions).

CS, in response:

-            to MS, the height of the extension will be about 1m above the existing boundary fence;

-            to JW, the proposal initially failed the light test with regard to No 6.  The light test is designed to show if the impact of the proposed development will be significant, and as a result, the applicant reduced the height of the extension to remove the impact.  The neighbours’ kitchen is already quite a dark room, and the additional impact of the extension was not considered significant, and passed the light test at No 6 and No 8;

-            to JF, this extension is subservient because it is only a single storey.  It is not a dominating structure, and complies with the policy definition of subservience;

-            also to JF, the paragraph on daylight in the SPD on residential alterations and extensions refers to the light test which, as already mentioned, is not coming out at an unacceptable level.  There will be a noticeable but not harmful change as a result of the additional height on the boundary.

MS:  will the fence be retained or will the extension replace the fence?  Will the neighbours be looking at wood or brick?

CS, in response:

-            as shown in the drawing, they will look at a fence with brick projecting over the top.

GB:  would JF like to confirm her move to refuse – on CP4(a) and CP7?

JF:  yes, and also the SPD paras 2.1.2 (subservience), 2.1.5 (daylight) and 3.2 (rear extensions).  Is also worried about the garage at the front – some alteration needs to be taken into consideration.

Vote on JF’s move to refuse on CP4(a), CP7, SPD on Residential Alterations and Extensions paras 2.2, 2.5 and 3.2

8 in support

2 in objection

3 abstentions

REFUSE