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 to the neighbouring property would be marginal and were within acceptable tolerances.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation subject to an additional condition.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.          The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission.

2.          All the external surfaces of the development shall be finished in materials to match the colour, texture and style of the existing building.

3.          The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:  Drawing nos.

             019¬_122 REVG-001 LOCATION LAYOUT

019¬_122 REVG-002 SITE LAYOUT

019¬_122 REVG-100 EXISTING GROUND FLOOR

019¬_122 REVG-115 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN

019¬_122 REVG-105 EXISTING ROOF PLAN

019¬_122 REVG-003A BLOCK PLAN LAYOUT

019¬_122 REVH-110C PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR

019¬_122 REVH-300 EXISTING REAR ELEVATION

019¬_122 REVH-301 EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION

019¬_122 REVH-302 EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION

019¬_122 REVH-310A PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION

019¬_122 REVH-311C PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION

019¬_122 REVH-312A PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION

019¬_122 REVH-313 PROPOSED PARTY ELEVATION

4.          Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2015 (and any order revoking and re-enacting that order) no additional ground floor windows or doors shall be inserted in the north-western side elevation or the north-eastern side elevation of the extensions hereby permitted.

5.          Notwithstanding the approved plans, no permission is granted for any raised terrace/patio adjacent to the rear extension.

6.          No development work shall commence until surveyed plans showing the existing house and ground levels and the proposed extension have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans approved by this condition.

Informatives

1.          IN907 Positive and proactive handling of application.

2.          IN910 Building Regulations

3.          IN911 Party Wall Act

4.          IN912 Hours of Construction

5.          Officer’s report