PROPOSAL:  Erection of a first floor rear extension. 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

5.6             This application was for the erection of a first floor rear extension.

5.7             The Planning Officer advised that the application related to Tretower, a semi-detached dwelling located in a semi-rural residential area on the outskirts of Winchcombe.  The proposal sought the erection of a first storey extension to the side and rear of the dwelling which would be constructed on top of a single storey flat-roofed extension which had been permitted in 2015.  The main issue to be considered was the impact that the extension would have upon neighbouring amenity, specifically loss of light and overbearing impact on the adjacent property, Winds Point, and the adjoining semi-detached property, Lynwood.  The Officer report set out that permission had recently been granted for a range of extensions at Winds Point to be constructed on the boundary with the application site; whilst these had not yet been constructed, it was a material consideration, therefore, two assessments had been made based on the impact of the proposal as the sites were currently and the impact should the neighbouring extensions be constructed.  The Planning Officer confirmed that both assessments concluded there would be no unacceptable impacts to that property. Likewise, the adjoining semi-detached property Lynwood would not suffer any discernible impacts because the extension would be located on the western part of the host dwelling leaving a large gap between the properties.  This gap would mean there would be no overshadowing, loss of light, or overbearing impact to that property.  The scheme complied with planning policy and the Officer recommendation was therefore to permit.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show two videos provided by the applicant showing the site from the front and rear.

5.8             The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that the type of extension they were hoping to add was very common on 1930’s semi-detached properties with the surrounding area being made up of similar properties, a number of which had two storey side extensions that had been given planning permission by the local planning authority.  The design for the proposed extension was based on the already approved design for Green Hyde, a left-hand side semi-detached property which was identical to theirs and located two houses down.  The applicant’s architect had tried to stay true to the character and features of the existing house with regard to materials, finishing and roof pitch/design, and had spent a long time looking at the roof height to reduce the eaves as much as possible in order to ensure the extension was subservient to the existing house and surrounding buildings.  The proposed extension would be constructed over an existing single storey part of the building and would not require an increase in footprint with the additional floor area only equating to 13.7 square metres.  The principal elevation of the extension would be set back over 6.7 metres from the principal elevation of the existing house in order to remain sympathetic to the streetscene.  The applicant went on to explain that the extension would be approximately 3.5 metres from Lynwood, the adjoining property, and, when referencing the 45 degree or privacy rule, would have no detrimental effect on the neighbours “right to light” on either side as no additional shade would be created based on the position of the proposed extension and the path the sun moved over the property.  The proposed extension would be approximately one metre further from the boundary of the adjoining neighbour to the east compared with the approved extension at Green Hyde - the applicant pointed out that the neighbours to the west at Winds Point had not raised any objection to the proposal, despite the fact that it would be constructed closer to their boundary; on the contrary, planning permission had recently been granted for a ground floor extension to that property and it was intended to plan simultaneous builds in order to minimise any disruption to surrounding neighbours.

5.9             The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring properties.  The proposer of the motion indicated that there had already been quite substantial extension of the property and his concern was for the neighbours at Lynwood.  The properties were very small and the extension would be between the two upper floor windows which, when viewed from the garden of Lynwood, would have an overbearing impact and potential loss of light to the property.  He appreciated that photographs and videos had been provided to assist the Committee in its determination of the application but, in his opinion, this was no substitute for visiting the site and viewing the property from the garden, and that of the neighbouring property Lynwood.  The seconder of the motion agreed that it was very difficult to appreciate the issue of overlooking and loss of light without being on site, particularly as the buildings were very close together.  He did not feel the videos that had been shown were adequate in terms of Members making a fair assessment of the proposal and was of the view that the only way to properly assess the impact was by physically visiting the site, as such, he was happy to support the proposal.  The Chair pointed out that the only way to view the property from the rear garden was to go through the house and, given the current social distancing rules, it should be borne in mind that it may be a considerable time before it was possible for the Committee to conduct a site visit.  The proposer of the motion indicated that the property could be easily viewed from the garden of the neighbouring property without going through that property.  Whilst he recognised the practicalities of carrying out a site visit would be challenging, in his opinion it was the only way to make a proper assessment of the impact of the proposal and he pointed out that the Town Council had raised concern regarding the application. 

5.10           A Member noted that the applicant had mentioned a property close by which had been granted planning permission for a very similar extension and he sought clarification as to where the local planning authority would stand if this application was refused.  The Technical Planning Manager reminded Members that each application must be determined on its own merits; notwithstanding this, the merits did somewhat depend on other applications which had been determined within the area.  It was also necessary to consider decisions that had been taken, both by Officers under delegated powers and by the Planning Committee, on similar types of development i.e. other two storey extensions to semi-detached properties.  In the Officers’ opinion, it would be very difficult to substantiate a reason for refusal based on overbearing impact and loss of light in this particular instance given that the extension would be set well away from the boundary and would not be breaking the 45 degree rule.  Nevertheless, it was ultimately a matter of judgement for Members.  A Member indicated that he could not support the proposal for a Planning Committee Site Visit; whilst he sympathised with the proposer of the motion, he did not feel a site visit would add anything further to the material that had been presented today and it could be months before it was possible to physically visit the site which could result in the applicant lodging an appeal for non-determination which he felt would be difficult for the local planning authority to defend based on the Officer advice.  The Technical Planning Manager stressed that Members should not feel they could not request a Planning Committee Site Visit purely because of the current circumstances if they felt strongly that they needed to conduct a visit before making a decision.  Notwithstanding this, it should be borne in mind that a number of planning appeals were taking place without site visits with the Inspector making a judgement based on the facts and any photographs and videos that had been submitted. 

5.11           Upon being taken to the vote, the motion to defer the application for a Planning Committee Site Visit was lost.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.