Issue - meetings

The Committee considered an application that proposed the erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extension and alterations to garage.

Councillor A Boote, Ward Councillor, was very concerned by this extension application and commented that the property was already overdeveloped and she thought that the rear extension proposal would have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property, with loss of light and privacy.

Some Members sympathised with the objectors and the affected neighbour, however they did not think the application breached any Planning Policy so therefore did not think there was grounds to refuse.

The Committee were reminded that the existing dormer extension could not be considered as part of this application as this had been completed previously under permitted development.

Following a question regarding the height of the extension the Planning Officer confirmed that the rear extension would be considered single storey, and the highest point would be level with the window cill of the square bathroom window on the rear elevation. The single storey rear extension would project 2.8m from the rear elevation.  The Planning Officer commented that any loss of light to the neighbour would not be considered detrimental as the garden was large and it had also been determined that there was no direct loss of privacy from this extension; Members were reminded that the dormer extension may have resulted in a loss of privacy, however this was not a material consideration of this application. It was also noted that the 45 degree rule had not been breached.

Councillor A Boote moved, and it was duly seconded by Councillor T Aziz that the application be refused on the grounds of bulk, mass and overbearing, which spoilt the light and enjoyment of the neighbouring property.

The Chairman asked the advice of Planning Officer on the reasons put forward for refusal. Dan Freeland advised that there was long standing guidance in the Outlook and Amenity SPD and that he would advise against refusal on the grounds of ‘light and enjoyment’ as this would be hard to defend on appeal. Dan Freeland commented that if the applicant was not tying the rear extension into the side extension, then an even larger rear extension could be built on the back of the house under permitted development, which the Committee should bear in mind.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above.  The votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz,  A J Boote and D Hughes.

                                 TOTAL:  3

Against:                              Cllrs J Brown, S Dorsett, N Martin, C Rana and D Roberts.

                                 TOTAL:  5

Present but not voting:      Cllr L M N Morales (Chairman)

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore not refused.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the original recommendation in the report.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6