Extension to existing outbuilding.
Local Member:
Councillor E. Selwyn Griffiths
Minutes:
Full application for an extension to existing outbuilding.
(a)
The Senior Development Control Officer
elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the application
was to extend two existing flat roof garden buildings set in an L shape to
create a pitched roof building at the far end of the garden of a terraced
house. It was explained that the length
and width of the building would be no greater than the two sides of the
existing L shape (5.6m x 6.2m) and the roof would be no higher than the roof of
next door's garden building. It was
noted due to the nature of the area and the land levels that it was inevitable
that there was some overlooking between the houses and the gardens.
In terms of concerns highlighted by the owner of the house next door to
the north (Number 25) regarding overlooking, it was not considered that the
proposal would exacerbate the existing situation to an extent that would have a
negative impact on the residential amenities/privacy of nearby houses. As the
development ran along the boundary of the garden of number 25 next door, it was
accepted that there would be some shadowing on the end of the garden of that
property, however, it was not considered that there would be a detrimental
impact on the visual amenities of the garden or the house of number 25 or any
other house either.
Concern had been expressed regarding the impact of the roof lights on the
rear slope of the building’s roof and the possibility of overlooking or light
pollution, and it was noted that it would be possible to include an appropriate
condition regarding an opaque glass window to overcome the concern.
Having considered all relevant considerations, the planning officers’
recommendation was to approve the application subject to the conditions
outlined in the report.
(b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, an
objector noted the following main points:
·
There was a weakness
in the plan as it did not provide the correct profile of the land
·
That the land sloped
suddenly to the left of the building and if it extended 3m from the wall it
would affect the nearby garden
·
It was not useful
that the floor level was the same height as the bedrooms of Number 25
·
They did not agree
with point 5.6 of the report which noted that overlooking already existed –
this was not the case
·
That the garden of
number 23 was lower than number 25
·
That Number 25 had a
patio measuring 1.25m below the level of the proposed building therefore some
privacy would be lost due to the existence of the building
·
Additionally, this
exacerbated the problem of shadowing – there were two spots where it was
possible to sit outside number 25 and should the building be approved to be
3.6m tall and to extend 3m forwards, this would darken these areas
·
Patio number 25 was
lower than the level and would therefore be significantly affected
·
The house was too
high, compared with number 21 and the remainder of the entire street was lower
and none extended to the main house as in the case of this application
·
Reference was made
to Policy B22 and attention drawn to the fact that the public had access to the
rear of this building and should the ridge of this building be too high, they
would lose this view
(c)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant noted the following main points:
·
There was significant misunderstanding of what
the proposal entailed
·
He had met with as
many local residents as possible, but not the resident of number 25 despite trying
to arrange a meeting
·
That the actual size
of the building meant that the roof was the influencing factor but it would be no higher than the nearby
property namely number 21 which then determined the floor level within the
extension
·
That the garden level
was relatively flat all the way from the current rear wall to where it
currently extended, and then falls away beyond the lower garden
·
The level of the
slab will not be as high as the wall
·
It was seen that
there would be a benefit to number 25 as the level of the garden would be
reduced – it was not intended to increase the height of the garden and all
efforts would be made to try to maintain links with neighbours
·
The proposal would
use the patio area which was 3m lower than the rear of the house
·
That some of the
matters in the objection were misleading and they would do all they could to
ensure additional screening if needed
(ch) The Local Member (not a member of this
Planning Committee) supported the application but he expressed concern regarding
the roof light and whether it would be possible to mitigate concerns regarding
overlooking.
(d)
In response to the above, the Senior Development
Control Officer assured the Committee that it would be possible to overcome the
overlooking problem by introducing a condition to include a non-opening opaque
glass window.
(dd) Proposed and seconded to approve the
application in accordance with the planning officers’ recommendation.
(e)
In response to an enquiry by a Member regarding
a condition for using the building, the Development Control Manager noted that
there would be no need for a condition as the proposal was for a single room
ancillary building.
(f)
It was voted to approve the application in
accordance with the recommendation of the planning officers.
Resolved: To approve the application in
accordance with the following conditions:
1. Five years
2. Development to
comply with the approved plans.
3. Slate roof and materials
4. Permanently
closed opaque glass roof lights only
Note: Party Wall Act
Supporting documents: