Agenda item

Proposed raised patio and fencing

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Proposed raised patio and fencing.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the addendum where it was noted that a petition had been received objecting to the application since the agenda had been published. Officers introduced the report noting that under permitted development, patios can be constructed in the garden area up to a height 30cm. The application granted in 2019 was for a single storey extension and a raised patio of just over 30cm, when the patio area was constructed it was raised to just over 50cm which had led to the application in front of Members which would reduce that patio area to 40cm in height. Officers deemed that a refusal reason based on overlooking could not be justified. The application was recommended for approval.

A petition objecting to the development had been received following the publication of the meeting’s agenda. The lead petitioner was present and addressed the Committee. Key points that were raised included:

• Concerns were raised over the applicant exceeding the permitted height of the raised patio on their previous planning application and stated that there must be specific circumstances for exceeding the permitted height of 30cm.

• The petitioner had concerns around overlooking and the intrusion of privacy into their property as a result of the raised patio. It was noted that the fence and trellis only came up to many peoples’ chest height, allowing them to easily view into the neighbouring property.

• The petitioner’s measurements had the height of the existing patio at closer to 60cm, almost twice the height of permitted development and questioned the real-world impact of only lowering the patio by a relatively small amount. Concerns were raised over the prospect of future applications being given leeway to exceed their permitted development rights. A number of similar refused applications were noted.

• It was noted that, due to the elevation of people when out on the patio, noise disturbance was an issue.

• It was highlighted that the report mentioned that proposals would lessen the likelihood of overlooking not prevent it. The reduction in the height of the patio and the proposed 2m fencing would do very little to prevent overlooking.

• The report implied that a decision to refuse the application may not hold up at appeal, however the 28 residents who had signed the petition over the preceding weekend would disagree.

The applicant had submitted a written statement that was read out ahead of the Committee’s debate. Key points raised in the statement included:

• The applicant had very recently been made aware of the petition objecting to the retrospective application. Unfortunately, due to a pre booked holiday, they were unable to attend the meeting to put across their views and had therefore submitted a written statement.

• It was noted that officers had recommended the application be approved however, should the Committee have been minded to refuse the application, it was requested that the item instead be deferred to allow the applicant to attend the meeting in person to put across their views.

• An application for a single storey rear extension, approved in 2019, featured drawings of the raised patio but without dimensions given. No objection was made pre-approval about the raised patio. Once building had started, a complaint was received, and an enforcement officer felt that there was a difference between what was built and what was drawn on the original plans. The applicant then worked with officers to mitigate overlooking from the adjacent property including a reduction in height of 10cm, a taller fence and a planting area adjacent to the fence.

• The new plans were asking for a 40cm raised patio. An enforcement letter had stated the previous patio was at a height of 30cm when the applicant stated this was 34cm, therefore the difference was 6cm not 10cm.

• It was clarified that the fence currently in place was 160cm high with a trellis of 30cm on top. A 200cm fence would be a vast improvement, particularly with the 10cm reduction in the height of the patio.

• A final concern was raised in that the applicant had recently received an approval notification through their architect; it was highlighted that this was an administration mistake bringing further stress to the process.

By way of clarification, officers confirmed that Members were considering a patio 10cm above what would be considered permitted development. If Members were considering an application within permitted development, they would have no control over the boundary treatment. A two-metre-high screen with an additional 30-centimetre trellis had been proposed and officers had recommended a condition stipulating that this be installed concurrently with the patio and thereafter retained and maintained in perpetuity. Officers had also negotiated a planted strip adjacent to the boundary which helped to define the separation.

Members sought clarification over whether the height of the fencing had been measured from the ground or the level of the raised patio. Officers confirmed that this was measured from ground level and there would be 1.9 metres of fencing (inclusive of the 30 centimetres of trellis) above the level of the patio. Members noted how this would still allow people of a certain height to easily view over the fence, however officers noted that the negotiated height of the boundary was higher than it would have been if the patio had remained under permitted development limits. The officer’s recommendations were moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed with five votes for and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per the officer’s recommendations.