Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Two errors within the report were identified as follows:-

•  The first paragraph on page 36 should read: 'Permission is sought for a part one, part two storey side extension and a part one/part two storey rear extension.'.

•  The final sentence of the penultimate paragraph on page 37 should read: 'It is not considered, therefore, that any overlooking or harm to the amenities of the residents at No. 30 would result from the proposal.'.

The following oral representations in objection to the application were received from neighbour, Mr Robert Payne:-

•  A great deal of information had been gathered and provided to support objections to the application however, the planning report failed to reflect any of the points raised.

•  There was a distinct lack of care which could be seen in the way the report for 34 Copse Avenue had been pasted into the previous report for 32 Copse Avenue.  The neighbouring house number had also been incorrectly pasted.

•  Contrary to what was stated in the report, the proposed extension at 32 Copse Avenue was not similar to the extension at 34 Copse Avenue, it was completely different and in this respect, the application had not been properly reviewed.

•  Councillors had a difficult job in reviewing such residential plans and Members were respectfully asked to take Mr Payne’s very strong objection into account when considering the application.

•  Mr and Mrs Payne had resided at their property for 18 years during which time they had enjoyed a high level of privacy.  The proposed first floor enormous patio style set of full height opening windows, together with the Juliet type balcony, would totally compromise that level of privacy, would tower over Mr Payne’s property and would look straight onto his rear terrace.

•  There would be a total removal of sunlight and reduction in daylight to Mr and Mrs Payne’s six foot square stairway window.  Copse Avenue was situated on a hill and No 34 was already approximately 1 metre higher than Mr and Mrs Payne’s house.

•  A precedent would be created by building an overbearing two storey structure totally out-of-character with the rear garden scene in the area.

•  A precedent would also be created by the over-development of the existing host building by 80%.

•  The application, if approved without modification, would affect the lives of Mr and Mrs Payne in a totally unacceptable way.

In summing up, Mr Payne asked Members to take into account his considerable concerns and refuse the application.

Councillor Joel reported that he had been Chairman of the Plans 4 Sub-Committee when this application was previously considered.  At that time he had visited the site and concluded that what was being proposed was no different to other extensions in the immediate vicinity and for this reason he had supported the application.  Referring to loss of light through the staircase window at number 30 Copse Avenue, Councillor Joel commented that as the area was not an habitable room, this would not have a significant impact on No 30.  Councillor Joel moved that the permission be granted.

Having read the report and considered the objections, Councillor Michael could see nothing unacceptable about the application in planning terms.  The proposals were in line with side space policy, were not over-dominant and would not have a major impact on the privacy of neighbours.  For these reasons, Councillor Michael seconded the motion for permission to be granted.

Councillor Fawthrop disagreed and moved refusal on the grounds over-development and side space issues.  There would be an increase in the size of the house which would impinge on the amenity of the residents at No. 30.  At certain points of the proposed development, the side space would not amount to a metre.  Where a high standard of separation existed, this would cause a pseudo-terracing effect at the site and was an issue Members should protect against.

On the basis that the addition of a Juliet balcony was likely to result in overlooking, Councillor Buttinger seconded the motion for refusal.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.