Agenda item

Erection of first floor rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Erection of first floor rear extension.

Item 7 was taken before item 6.

Officers noted that the site was not within a conservation area and was not listed.

In general, officers were satisfied that the design was in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing building, the straight scene and the wider character in terms of amenity. There would be no loss of daylight/ sunlight.

A further site inspection had been carried out this afternoon to examine the outlook of the neighbouring properties and officers were satisfied that the outlook would be retained to the garden area.

The application was recommended for approval.

The petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·       The petitioner lived next door to the application site

·       The officer’s report stated that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity. This was not the case and the proposal would have a considerable adverse impact for the petitioner’s property and way of life, being both intrusive and causing severe lack of light

·       The petitioner had lived here for nearly 34 years

·       The petitioner’s conservatory had a glass roof through which they can see the sky and trees. The proposed extension was due south of this conservatory and would block a lot of light

·       Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan stated it seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact on the amenity daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties

·       The view from the conservatory had already been spoiled by construction

·       During spring and autumn, the petitioner’s house benefitted from bright sunshine in the kitchen. The proposed extension would remove this uplifting experience. It would remove considerable daylight from the kitchen, and the petitioner would have to use electric light. This was not good for global warming, and not in accordance with the policy

·       The Human Rights Act stated that public officials should only do things that restrict one's right to private and family life when they need to

·       There had been numerous previous applications on this site which were not carried out to plan and had Planning Enforcement involvement. Construction over four years took little notice of their conditions such as working hours

·       The building of the extension resulted in extensive damage to the side of the petitioner’s rear outbuilding which needed wall strengthening; the roof copings being replaced; and drainage installed. The petitioner’s insurance company was still trying to resolve excessive damp inside the outbuilding and had had no response from the applicant

·       There were errors in the officer’s report which included referring to the wrong house number; the wrong street; the fact that number 15 was the two-storey house when it had a third story; two driveways when there was only one; and wrongly describing an outhouse as the lean-to

·       Policy DMHB 1 of the Local Plan stated that alterations and extensions to buildings would be required to ensure that a satisfactory relationship with the adjacent dwellings was achieved. Until there was no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers, this policy was not adhered to

Members asked about daylight and sunlight. Officers suggested there were no considerable issues, but this was contrary to what the petitioner had said. The segregation distance between properties allowed light to continue to pass between the application site and the neighbouring property. The two kitchen windows on the flank wall would still receive sufficient daylight, even though they were not directly facing the extension. The existing two-storey flank wall and fencing already compromised the window’s light. The neighbouring property had a window and door leading to a conservatory with a glazed roof and window, ensuring sufficient light.

The Committee acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns and discussed the need for a formal daylight and sunlight review. Members suggested that this may warrant further investigation.

Officers had visited the site and believed the impact to be acceptable.

Members asked on what occasions would an independent daylight/ sunlight review would be sought. Offices confirmed that this would be for all major applications. For residential schemes, officer opinion was sufficient. Officers had visited the site and deemed it acceptable. It was noted that the Committee could request a formal daylight/ sunlight review.

Members referred to one of the petitioner’s images and noted that the application would block out light. Members raised the possibility of a site visit. This was seconded. It was further noted that a site visit should not be in lieu of an independent daylight/ sunlight report.

A proposal to defer pending a site visit and an independent daylight/ sunlight report was moved, seconded and when put to a vote, approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.