Agenda item

VH introduced the application as above, which is at Committee at the request of Councillor Reid who considers it would dominate the adjacent property as it is over development and not subservient.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

RH:  notes at paragraph 6.18 that the officer does not consider the neighbouring property would lose daylight to an unacceptable degree, but what is an unacceptable degree and how close to being unacceptable is this proposal? 

VH, in response:

-       it is a simple pass or fail of the 45^o light test; this application passes the test.

JF:  is worried about the scheme.  There will undoubtedly be loss of daylight for the neighbours; it is overbearing.  Cannot go along with the officer recommendation.

RH:  doesn’t understand the light test and how it relates to what is in the report.  Will the neighbour lose 40% daylight, 44% or what?

MJC, in response:

-       to clarify the light test, as VH has said, schemes essentially pass or fail it.  It is carried out by projecting 45^o from different parts of the extension; if the centre point of the windows is on the extension side, there will be loss of light.  It is a crude system, but national best practice and routinely carried out;

-       planning guidance talks about loss of more than 20% of daylight being noticeable and therefore any loss below 20% is taken as acceptable;

-       this is quite technical and difficult to explain without pencil and paper, but it is basically about projecting various lines from the highest and deepest points.  Can demonstrate if Members would like.

AC:  it’s interesting that there is a very similar extension next door, and the proposal is no better or worse than that.  The objector  on the other side cannot build a similar extension, as the driveway of that property has been sold off.  If he owned this house and had a family, would want to do exactly what the applicant wants to do.  Considers it perfectly okay.

MS:  to anyone worried about loss of light, it will be noticeable to the neighbours but their sunlight is already compromised by the house next door but one.  Cannot see any problem with this application.

PT:  was going to say something similar.  The large extension on the house beyond definitely affects the light to the house of the neighbour who has objected, and there’s nothing to be done about that.  This proposal won’t make any fundamental difference.  Many of the houses in this area have extensions, not all as big but all on the same track of increasing the size of living accommodation.  Has no problem with this at all.

HM:  is concerned about on-street parking.  The house will be substantial, and may add as many as four cars.  On-street parking is already difficult, and at the bottom of the close, where the application site is situated, there is a turning circle which needs to be clear at all times.  This proposal will mean loss of amenity to neighbours in Brookway Drive, making it more difficult to park and turn round.

VH, in response:

-       there is one off-street parking space at the moment, and no additional spaces are proposed.  There was felt to be sufficient on- and off-street parking available in the area to ensure that highway safety will not be endangered.

-        

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

2 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT