Erection of rear and side extension (Amended Plans dated 31.10.19)

The committee received the report of the Interim Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site.

The Principal Planner (AR) introduced the report explaining that the application proposed the erection of a rear and side extension (amended plans dated 31.10.19).

Attention was drawn to the update sheet which included details of an additional representation, corrections to the report and a further condition.

The Chair invited Emma Manser, the adjoining neighbour, to speak to the committee.  Circulating a printed dossier summarising material previously circulated to members, Mrs Manser outlined a number of inaccuracies and concerns with the proposed extension plans.  These chiefly concerned incorrect elevations, breaches to the 45 degree rule and a loss of privacy from the proposed raised terrace, the ground levels for which were not accurately recorded.  The extension would have a significant impact on light and impact.  Mrs Manser suggested that a compromise solution had been reached in a similar property elsewhere on the Cassiobury estate.

The Chair invited Sarah Dookhun, the applicant, to speak to the committee.  Ms Dookhun explained that similar extensions had been carried out on other properties on the street.  The plans were compliant with the council’s guidelines and had been amended on the advice of officers in order to mitigate any impacts on the neighbouring property.  It was considered that the resultant plans would not significantly impact the neighbour’s light and outlook.  Ms Dookhun confirmed that they would comply fully with any additional conditions added by officers.

The Chair invited Park Ward Councillor Peter Kloss to speak to the committee.  Councillor Kloss regretted the lack of collaboration between the neighbours which had resulted in this case coming before the committee.  The applicants had taken advice from officers and amended their plans, however these remained inaccurate and were poorly labelled.  Whilst the 45 degree rule had been breached in this application, the proposals could not be considered unusual.  Councillor Kloss noted that the patio proposals did not form part of the application under consideration. 

Before seeking comments from the committee, the Chair underlined the importance of applicants submitting accurate plans with actual dimensions.  He also reiterated the benefit of neighbours in dispute maintaining constructive dialogue. 

The Chair drew attention to a late representation from Cassiobury Residents Association which discussed a number a points previously raised by the speakers and covered in the officer’s report.  However the representation included the suggestion that the flank wall be painted white to ameliorate any impacts on light levels to the neighbouring property.

The Chair reminded committee members that the so-called 45 degree rule provided guidance rather than direction on acceptable and unacceptable impacts for daylight and sunlight levels.

Members of the committee argued that a larger development, with greater impacts on light levels, would have been possible under permitted development rights.  It was the wrap around element of the application which required planning permission.  The plans, although somewhat inaccurate, showed that the negative impacts on the levels of daylight and sunlight  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44