Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey rear extension. 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

60.33        This application was for the erection of a two storey rear extension.

60.34        The Planning Officer explained that the proposal sought the erection of a two storey rear extension which would protrude into the garden by 1.6 metres.  Whilst there was some perceived harm to neighbouring amenity by way of a reduction in morning light to a ground floor window, as highlighted by the Town Council and adjoining neighbour, this was not considered to be sufficient to warrant a refusal, as such, the application was recommended for permission.

60.35        The Chair indicated that a local resident had been due to speak in objection to the application; however, due to the exceptional circumstances associated with the coronavirus and the government advice in relation to that, the representative was not able to attend in person and it had been agreed that, on this occasion, the statement would be read out by the Planning Officer.  The statement set out that the local resident lived in a neighbouring property and felt that the proposed extension would have a detrimental impact on their quality of life.  The Planning Officer had decided that the loss of early morning light and the overshadowing to their property from the proposed extension was not a concern as the late afternoon and evening light would compensate; however, along with the Town Council, he would argue that the house would be further deprived of natural light during all times of the day.  The house was north facing and already suffered from low light within the kitchen/dining area during long winter months so any further overshadowing would have a huge impact.  As No. 53 Wynyards Close was the end house in a terraced row it had the option to extend to the side of the property where there was plenty of space; this would not overlook or encroach on any other property and meant that No. 53 could still be in extended in a way that would not impact on their quality of light and life with only some slight changes to the plans.  Finally, he felt the proposed extension would enclose their already small garden which was 5.5. metres wide – the rear window of their house already faced an apex garage 5.2 metres away – so they could not afford to lose any more valuable natural light from an already dark garden.  Before a final decision was made, he would appreciate a Planning Committee Site Visit to their property and garden.

60.36        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 upon neighbouring residential amenity.  The proposer of the motion felt that this was only fair in view of the statement that had been read out on behalf of the local resident.  The Chair felt it should be borne in mind that it was unclear when the Planning Committee would next meet in view of the uncertainty around the national coronavirus pandemic so it could potentially be quite some time before a site visit could be undertaken and he questioned whether a deferral would be reasonable.  The Legal Adviser clarified that, despite the unusual circumstances, the question for Members remained whether they were in a position to determine the application today or whether they needed a site visit before a decision could be made.  The seconder of the motion expressed the view that the impact of the proposal upon the neighbouring property could last a lifetime so the fact there may be a delay in undertaking a site visit was not a reason not to have one.  A Member indicated that, based on his calculations, the extension would only protrude 1.6 metres from the property so this would be quite a small extension which he did not feel would have a considerable impact in terms of loss of light given the angles of the sun.  In his view, regardless of the length of a deferral, he could not see what would be gained from a site visit.  The Planning Officer confirmed that a light assessment had been undertaken which had demonstrated that, whilst there would be an impact, it would not be significant enough to warrant a refusal; the garden was north facing meaning that the light would be reduced in the morning but not in the afternoon.

60.37         Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for a deferral for a 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 taken to the vote, it was

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