Agenda item

Part single; part three storey side extension (following part demolition of side garage addition and removal of chimney) with balcony and balustrade; replacement ground floor side door with window; reinstatement of front garage door; replacement ground floor rear windows/doors with new bi-fold doors and extended rear patio.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Part single; part three storey side extension (following part demolition of side garage addition and removal of chimney) with balcony and balustrade; replacement ground floor side door with window; reinstatement of front garage door; replacement ground floor rear windows/doors with new bi-fold doors and extended rear patio.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. It was noted that subsequent to the publication of the addendum, a consultation response had been received from the Environment Agency, confirming no objection. The application was recommended for refusal by reason of its bulk, height, size, siting and proximity leading to a harmful sense of enclosure and perceived loss of outlook to the first-floor bedroom window of 27 Jacks Lane, thereby harming their existing living conditions to an unacceptable degree.

A petition had been received in objection to the application; the lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         A petition with 44 signatures in objection to the application had been submitted – there were only 38 houses in the street hence this demonstrated the strength of feeling;

·         It was suggested that additional reasons for refusal be included to address the concerns highlighted by the Conservation Officer in relation to the size and bulk of the proposed development, its harm to the character of the conservation area and its visibility from the Grand Union Canal;

·         Concerns regarding the loss of daylight / sunlight impacting the resident at no.27 had not been included in the report; 

·         The report stated that views would be similar to the existing – this was inaccurate as the proposed development would result in direct overlooking into the neighbour’s garden at no.27;

·         The development would result in impairment of the private amenity of no.27.

The applicant was in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         The applicant and his partner had a large family and needed more space to accommodate them;

·         Pre-planning advice had been sought in June 2021 and plans submitted in May 2022. In response to concerns regarding the loss of outlook to the side, the applicant had worked with planning officers and had submitted revised plans for a less bulky development accordingly. The applicant had been surprised to see that the application was recommended for refusal due to concerns regarding a harmful sense of enclosure – he had believed that the application was compliant with policy and would be approved;

·         The reason for refusal relating to the loss of outlook to the bedroom window at no.27 had not been mentioned previously. The applicant claimed that the window in question was a secondary window. Moreover, the 6m distance between the window and the proposed extension was acceptable and the outlook from the window would remain unchanged.

Ward Councillor Jane Palmer was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of the petitioners. Councillor Palmer noted that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the opinion of the Conservation Officer and that of the Planning Officer.  She asked the Committee to take into account the concerns raised by the Conservation Area regarding harm to the Conservation Area and requested that an additional reason for refusal be added to the report in relation to this.

In response to this Members were reminded that the Conservation Officer was a consultee only and the Committee was not bound to follow their advice. Planning officers believed that (notwithstanding the concerns about impact on residential amenity), if approved, the development would appear subordinate thereby preserving the Conservation Area. An additional reason for refusal in relation to this was therefore not recommended. With regard to the impact on a side facing study/work room window referenced by the Petitioner, it was not recommended that the reason for refusal be amended to include this, as the room was not considered by officers to be a main habitable room. Moreover, it was not felt that concerns relating to privacy would stand up to scrutiny should the matter go to appeal. In respect of asbestos concerns, it was confirmed that the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer had raised no objections to the proposal. Members heard that planning officers had worked with the applicant to address design concerns; however, concerns regarding a significant window remained and the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

In response to their requests for clarification, Members heard that the proposed development would be visible from the Grand Union Canal but, on balance, it was considered that the impact on the Conservation Area would not be harmful.

Members expressed concern regarding the impact on no.27 and the harmful sense of enclosure and felt it was difficult to support the proposal.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.