Agenda item

An application for the erection of a single storey rear conservatory

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of five objections to the application.

The Committee agreed that Councillor D Scudder, councillor for Stanborough ward, could address the meeting.

Councillor Scudder said that he wished to address aspects of the application in the context of the planning history of the site.  He advised that a proposal for the erection of five houses had been refused in January 2008 and an appeal had been dismissed in October 2008.  A further application had been granted in 2009.   For this application the single storey extension had been removed.

Councillor Scudder drew attention to the fact that the proposed development reproduced plans which had been refused on appeal in 2008.  He asked whether the Committee would be compromised by granting this application thus overturning the 2008 decision of the Planning Inspector. 

The Chair considered that this was an important and substantive point and asked the Development Management Section Head if he would comment. 

The Development Management Section Head explained that the refusal of 24 October 2008 was made prior to the adoption of the Residential Design Guide (RDG) which had introduced changed policies.   He advised that the Council could no longer follow the Inspector’s conclusion and that the Committee should now be guided by the Council’s current adopted planning policies and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Councillor Williams commented that the original planning application had proved to be contentious.  He reminded the meeting that the amended application had been passed and that, consequently, a single storey extension should not now be considered. 

Councillor Williams then drew attention to policies GP3 and DG1.  He said that Policy GP3 set out guidance on the effects of development on neighbouring properties; he claimed that this application would adversely affect such properties.   Councillor Williams also noted that policy DG1 stated that extensions should not exceed 3.5 m whilst this conservatory would extend by 4m.  He suggested that the application could be refused on those lines.  He added his concerns regarding privacy, noting that this issue had been key to rejection of the original proposal at appeal. 

The Applications Casework Manager advised that two standards should be applied in the matter of privacy.  Firstly, there should be a 27.5m ‘back to back’ distance between first floor windows in neighbouring dwellings and, secondly, there should be a 10m distance from a first floor window to the boundary.  He stressed that these distances must be measured from a first floor window and that there were no distance requirements at ground floor.  

The Applications Casework Manger further noted that no 11, The Pippins had only one adjoining neighbour which, at the rear, was set back from the application house.  This would result in the proposed conservatory projecting only 2m beyond the back wall of the neighbouring property.

In reply to a question from Councillor Johnson, the Applications Casework Manager said a substantial degree of amenity would remain within the rear boundaries of 11 The Pippins, amounting to over 90 sq m after the extension had been built.  

The Chair noted that the extension would be a predominantly glazed structure and asked whether there were similar buildings in this locality.

The Applications Casework Manager replied that the conservatories were usually glazed in similar proportion to this proposal.  He added that this would be of considerably lighter construction than one of solid brickwork and would provide a clear indication of the original building’s structure.

Councillor Johnson noted that Permitted Development Rights had previously been withdrawn at the original application and asked whether it would have been allowed under the new legislation.  He also asked why Permitted Development Rights had been removed.

The Applications Casework Manager explained that had Permitted Development Rights not been withdrawn an extension of up to 3m would have been allowed. 

Responding to a question from the Chair, the Development Management Section Head advised that weight could not be accorded to the removal of Permitted Development Rights nor could it be inferred that planning permission for what would otherwise have been permitted development would therefore be refused.  All that the condition removing Permitted Development Rights had done was to require all such proposals to be the subject of an application for planning permission. He explained that this meant that what the Committee had to do was to determine the current application in the light of policies adopted and currently in use by the Council. 

Councillor Watkin referred to an email from a resident passed to the Committee prior to the start of the meeting.  He noted that the email had commented on visibility from ground floor and first floor windows.   Councillor Watkin then drew attention to the sloping roof of the conservatory and asked whether this had any significance with regard to distance from the first floor windows of neighbouring properties.

The Applications Casework Manager advised that no such standards had been set on this type of development.

Councillor Derbyshire pointed out that the distance between the application site and the adjoining property in Rother Close had been central to considerations.  He noted that the advised distance as set out in the Residential Design Guide was limited to 27.5m.  He considered, however, that the RDG’s guidance lacked clarity: it was unclear that the distance should be measured to first floor windows.  Councillor Derbyshire suggested that the RDG should be improved; residents had difficulty in understanding the guidance on distance which could, in fact, be interpreted in several different ways. 

The Applications Casework Manager agreed that the section on distance was confusing and advised that the RDG was in process of being updating and improved. He confirmed that the distance to be considered was from first floor windows rather than from the end of the conservatory.  He further advised on privacy issues from the ground floor windows noting that the boundary fence would be at a height of 1.8m to negate problems from overlooking.

In a reply to a question from Councillor Derbyshire, the Development Management Section Head advised that Permitted Development Rights could be a material consideration at appeal.  He noted a previous application which had originally been refused by the Council but then allowed at appeal by the Inspector.  The Development Management Section Head added that it was the Government’s view that an extension of up to 4m on a detached house, such as at this application, was not considered to be harmful to neighbouring properties and that, currently, an extension of up to 8m on a detached house was considered acceptable. 

The Development Management Section Head further advised that rigid adherence to planning policies and particular distances would not necessarily succeed at appeal; it had to be demonstrated that harm would arise as a result of a failure to meet a particular specified distance.  He noted that in this case, so far as the 4m depth of the extension was concerned, there was no evidence of harm to amenity to neighbouring properties.  The Development Management Section Head pointed out that there was a neighbouring property on one side only and that these two properties had a staggered aspect in respect of their back walls, such that the extension would appear to have a depth of about 2m when seen from the adjoining property.  He advised that, in such circumstances, an Inspector would in all likelihood allow any appeal against a refusal of planning permission. 

Councillor Jeffree noted that the conservatory would breach the 27.5m distance allowable between two neighbouring homes.  He advised that this could in effect prevent the neighbour from extending their property as the distance would then reduce to less than the limit.  Councillor Jeffree also referred to the location plan and noted the large outbuilding at the end of the garden at number 9, Rother Close.  He considered that this would effectively block any view from this house and that consequently this neighbouring house would not be adversely affected. 

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          Construction of the development hereby permitted shall not take place before 8am or after 6pm Mondays to Fridays, before 8am or after 1pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Public Holidays.

3          All the external surfaces of the extension shall be finished in materials to match the colour, texture and style of the existing building. In the event of matching materials not being available, details of any alternative materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development and the development shall only be carried out in accordance with any alternative details approved by this Condition.

Informative

1          In dealing with this application, Watford Borough Council has considered the proposal in a positive and proactive manner having regard to the policies of the development plan as well as paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and other material considerations, and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, as amended.

Drawing numbers

1008/1; 1008/2; 1008/3; Site Location Plan