Agenda item

To consider the report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

 

 

The Assistant Service Lead Planning presented the application for a proposed single-storey rear extension and alterations.

 

The Assistant Service Lead Planning referred to photos showing the extension attached to the garage of the Coach House, with the frontage to Bowling Green Road presented as a continuous stone wall and with a small courtyard located behind the garage of the Coach House. The photos also illustrated the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property.

 

He reported the following main elements of the proposal:-

 

·         a raised roofline above the garage with a window in the rear elevation that had been moved away from the boundary with the Coach House;

·         the provision of solar panels and conservation roof-light in the rear roof slope;

·         the roofline above the garage was to be raised to bring it in line with the main roofline of the house to run at one continuous level.  A window previously shown in the rear elevation had been moved further away from the boundary with the Coach House. There were two existing windows in this location, one of which was much closer to the boundary than the current proposed window;

·         small new windows were to be inserted onto the front roof and first-floor elevation; and

·         timber cladding to replace tiles hanging at the first-floor level.

 

The Assistant Service Lead referred to an error in the report stating that the reference to the roof height dropping down from the main roof by approximately 0.5 metres should read 1.13 metres. He referred to objections received relating mainly to the raised roofline above the garage and the relocated window and overbearing, overlooking and overshadowing.

 

The Assistant Service Lead advised that whilst there would be some impact from the raised roof on the amenity of the neighbour at the Coach House, it was not considered sufficiently severe to justify refusal.

 

Responding to a Member, the Assistant Service Lead advised that the construction hours set out in the conditions were standard as recommended by Environmental Health. They could be varied, but this was not advised as it might be open to challenge.

 

Jeremy Meadow spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

 

 

·         there was no objection to the main part of the amended application, and he appreciated the modifications;

·         the proposed first-floor extension was 1.13 metres in height, not 0.5 metres as set out in the report;

·         he was speaking on behalf of his mother as there would be a severe impact on her privacy; she is nearly 90 and has lived in the Coach House for 34 years. The house sat behind a solid stone wall with a sense of enclosure with a secure garage door and with a courtyard in front of the house with the courtyard used multiple times a day and was a significant part of her ability to continue to live independently;

·         overlooking – the proposed higher and larger windows, despite being further away, command more of a view of the courtyard and front of the house frontage than the current small window, which is much lower and camouflaged by ivy;

·         overbearing – the garage roof slopes steeply down from roadside to the inner courtyard, and the immediately adjoining extension will tower over the property creating a hemmed-in feeling;

·         overshadowing - the structure will reduce both the passage and feel of light both in the courtyard and indoors, obscuring the skyline through both upper and lower front windows;

·         planning is about people as well as land. Policy clause 13.36 refers to feeling comfortable and at ease and not feeling overlooked and hemmed in as specific principles of residential development, and the submitted photos support these points;

·         the occupant’s health is deteriorating even before work starts; there was no prior consultation made before the planning process commenced;

·         a compromise was rejected - to appropriately lower the overall extension height and omit the rear windows as the plan shows that the room has another window and skylight;

·         if granted, it is hoped that there will be a safeguarding condition regarding the listed wall and that working hours start at 9:00 am; and

·         he was positive about the planning officer’s suggestion of lowering the height and removing the window. He would rely on the Council’s conditions regarding building onto the listed wall.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ questions:-

 

·         his mother used the courtyard to sit in, which is her sanctuary and to access the road at the front of the property;

·         the height of the first-floor roof raise was material as the proposed roof raise was more than double than stated -  1.2 metres, not 0.5 metres; and

·         a frosted window would be an acceptable compromise.

 

Simon Briscoe spoke in support of the application. He raised the following points:-

 

·         the extra height transforms the two bedrooms, and lifting the slope of the roof from shoulder height allows people to stand up fully;

·         there will be little impact on a protected stretch of road;

·         plans have been changed to help satisfy the neighbours with the size of the extension reduced, and it no longer touches the garden boundary wall with doors and windows moved;

·         the neighbour’s suggestion to have no windows was rejected, but two windows have been reduced to one, and the view will be at a more oblique angle and from further away with these changes leading to less visibility;

·         as the extra roof height is at least six metres away from a window, it will have no measurable impact on internal light;

·         there will not be any shadow on the neighbour’s house or courtyard;

·         the extra height on the roof - which does not form one of the walls creating the enclosure of the courtyard - will not be overbearing; and

·         the objections related to privacy, light and overbearing do not stand up to scrutiny and are rejected.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ questions:-

 

·         request to change the hours of working could be challenging to implement as not aware of builders who start later than 8:00 am;

·         have tried to facilitate the concerns of the neighbour; and

·         the new window provides less visibility of the courtyard, and the suggestion of a frosted window is not appropriate for a bedroom.

 

Members expressed the following views:-

 

·         the application had been considered at a Delegation Briefing and brought to the Committee on the request of local Members;

·         the use of glazed windows for a bedroom would not be appropriate; and

·         limiting hours of construction would only extend the overall period of works.

 

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The recommendation was moved and seconded and, following a vote, was carried.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission for proposed extension and alterations be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1)         The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason:  To ensure compliance with sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2)         The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details – Plan numbers 21-867 S.01, A.02 Rev B, A.06 Rev. B dated 18/8/21 and A.03 Rev. C, A.04 Rev. C, A.05 Rev. C, and A.07 Rev. C dated 28/9/21

Reason: To ensure compliance with the approved drawings.

 

3)         No site machinery or plant shall be operated, no process shall be carried out, and no demolition or construction-related deliveries received or dispatched from the site except between the hours of 8 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday, 8 am to 1 pm Saturday  

Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living or working nearby.

 

4)         No development or construction activity shall be undertaken within the area(s) outlined on the attached plan until the means of protecting archaeological remains have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. All works shall be carried out and completed as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that significant archaeological remains are protected from damage during development.

 

Informatives

 

1)         Following paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council has worked positively and pro-actively and has imposed planning conditions to enable the grant of planning permission.

 

2)         Following the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, this development has been screened regarding the need for an appropriate assessment.

 

3)         The Party Wall Act 1996 contains requirements to serve notice on adjoining property owners if planning to do work of any kind described in Sections 1, 2, or 6 of the Act.