Agenda item

The Development Management Lead delivered her team’s report. 

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Andrew Mortimer, local resident, to speak against the application.

Mr. Mortimer asked the committee to look at the report while he ran though his points.  He highlighted that there would be a considerable loss of light to the kitchen and dining room; he stated that this was where he and his wife spend a lot of the day.  He went on to state that the proposed development would add 16% to the overall size of number 64, and called it a wraparound rebuild

Mr. Mortimer then clarified that the boundary wall belonged to him and was not shared with number 64.  He indicated that construction of the proposed extension would result in a loss of outlook and the loss of the vast majority of daylight to his kitchen window, replacing the view with that of a blank wall only two and a half metres from the window, and that the westerly evening sunlight would be completely lost.

The Chair thanked Mr. Mortimer.  He stated that the boundary wall was not a planning issue and to be sorted out outside of this committee.  He asked the planning officer to comment on the assumptions around use, daylight and the outlook aspects.

The Development Management Lead stated that the value of the window was taken in to account in relation to the overall living areas available in the property, she continued to say that a lot of the BRE assessments would not apply as the window was north facing.   In relation to the use of the room, members of the development team had visited the property; they were aware that the window was affected but this had to be taken in to consideration in relation to the property as a whole and balanced against the rights of the neighbours to develop.

The Chair thanked the Development Management Lead and invited Mrs. Jenita Gamil, the applicant, to speak in favour of the application.

Mrs. Jenita Gamil thanked everyone.  She stated that every planning decision had been made to cater for their two young children, to allow for both Mrs. Gamil and her husband to work from home and to allow her parents, who were elderly and ill, to live with them.  She continued that the home was almost one hundred years old and required many urgent works including to the roof that would be included in this development.  Mrs. Gamil stated that it would elevate the property and would be more energy efficient while keeping the character of the property.  She continued that, there had been complaints from the neighbour and their neighbour’s friends far and wide and that given the windows orientation it did not currently receive much light, and with the white render on the extension light would be reflected back.  She finished by stating that it was an optimal and energy effective design, which was compliant with the guidance and would generally enhance the stature of The Avenue.

The Chair thanked Mrs. Gamil, he felt that the key point was balancing the ambition of the residents at number 64 to make the house the best for their family with the impact on the neighbour at 62.  He believed that a certain amount of compromise should be reached and invited the committee to comment.

There was discussion around the usage of the room and if that was a material planning consideration.  It was clarified that while it was not, it was taken in to account in a broader way with the assessment and was considered in the overall amenities available to the occupants in the property.

There was discussion around the light in the room and the limited view from the window.  It was pointed out that a second window provided light directly to the dining room table, however it was highlighted that the view from the kitchen by the sink would be heavily obscured; replacing trees and sky with a single wall.  It was felt by some members of the committee that this was   harmful to the residents and as such would be non-compliant with the Residential Design Guide.

Questions were asked by several members of the committee in relation to the inclusion of a condition that white render would have to be used.  The Development Management Lead indicated that this would be difficult as the neighbour could refuse access to their property making it impossible to comply.

Members of the committee expressed sympathy with both sides and lamented that an agreement could not be reached outside of committee.

The Chair summed up stating that the overall scale of the building, in its self did not cause the Chair concern and he did not believe there was a significant change to the street scene.  However, he believed that the height and extent of the boundary wall were a concern and would take away any outlook from the window.  He went on to state that he believed it was a well-designed scheme in isolation but was not neighbourly. 

The Chair then put forward a motion that

The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, massing and siting, would cause significant loss of daylight and loss of outlook to the kitchen window and create a sense of enclosure to the neighbouring dwelling at No.62 The Avenue. Such loss of neighbouring amenity is contrary to Paragraph 130 of NPPF, Policy CC8.5 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 and section 8.4 Residential Design Guide 2016.

The Chair moved for the committee to vote on his motion.

On being put to the committee, the application was refused. 

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be refused.

Reason for refusal:

The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, massing and siting, would cause significant loss of daylight and loss of outlook to the kitchen window and create a sense of enclosure to the neighbouring dwelling at No.62 The Avenue. Such loss of neighbouring amenity is contrary to Paragraph 130 of NPPF, Policy CC8.5 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 and section 8.4 Residential Design Guide 2016.