Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

19/00594/FUL - 1 Down Hatherley Lane, Down Hatherley

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (approved plan schedule) of application 19/00006/FUL for alterations to elevations and floor plans to allow for provision of a first floor and alterations to fenestration.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.  

Minutes:

46.14        This application was for a variation of condition 2 (approved plan schedule) of application 19/00006/FUL for alterations to elevations and floor plans to allow for provision of a first floor and alterations to fenestration.  

46.15        The Planning Officer explained that the application related to No. 1 Down Hatherley Lane which was located along the southern side of the lane in Down Hatherley. The site comprised a semi-detached two storey dwelling with a pitched roof and was bound by residential properties to the north, east and south. Currently to the west of the site lay agricultural land; however, this formed part of the strategic allocation A1 Innsworth and Twigworth in the Joint Core Strategy and was shown to be housing and related infrastructure in the Joint Core Strategy indicative site layout proposal map. Planning permission at the site had been granted at the Planning Committee in April 2019 for the erection of a detached dwelling and associated works – planning reference 19/00006/FUL – and whilst that permission had not been implemented it was still extant. The application proposed changes to the design and scale of the dwelling as approved and had been submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary condition 2 of the original permission so as to amend the list of approved drawing numbers. The principal change from the approved scheme was the introduction of first floor accommodation to provide two bedrooms and a bathroom and, to facilitate the first floor accommodation, the ridge height of the eastern gable would increase by 0.9 metres with the depth increasing by 0.5 metres. In addition, two pitched dormer windows were proposed in replacement of two roof lights on the west facing roof slope. The overall length and eaves height of the dwelling would remain as approved. In terms of siting, the dwelling would not be located any closer to the boundaries. An assessment of the material considerations could be found at Pages No. 80-82 of the Officer’s report and, as set out in the report, the principle of the erection of a single dwelling at the site had already been established through the grant of full planning permission. Officers considered the changes to the design and scale of the dwelling as approved were acceptable, and accordingly it was recommended that the planning permission should be granted subject to the suggested conditions set out at Pages No. 83-85 of the Officer’s report.

46.16        The Chair invited an objector to address the Committee. The objector indicated that he was the owner of the neighbouring property most affected by the application. The Parish Council had also objected and the property was on land outside of the Council’s planning strategy; despite all of that the concerns appeared to be overridden in favour of the developer. The objector was of the view that this should be a full application rather than an amendment and it should not have been processed under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act as it must not be used where there was a material change to the application and material included impact on neighbouring property. A change from one to two storeys and removal of the privacy of a neighbouring property were, by definition, material. He explained that he was objecting to the amendment to two storeys because a two storey house alongside his bungalow would remove the privacy in his rear garden and overbear his property by its size and presence. In her submission supporting the original approval, the Planning Officer had used the fact that the property was single storey as a supporting factor in making the impact on the surrounding property acceptable. That reasoning now seemed to have changed with the only consideration being light rather than overlooking. The length of the proposed property was 13 metres but, as the plot on Google Earth was approximately 17.9 metres, there would be a gap to each boundary of around two metres; this would have a massive impact on The Haven as, from the upper storey, the whole of The Haven’s garden would be fully visible and the property would have imposed on it a building site a mere two metres away. The objector was of the view that the diagrammatic representation was fanciful as it was a congested plot with three massive conifers on the east boundary line with trunks in the neighbouring property. It was not apparent whether this was a self-build and this was important as it should be reflected in the planning conditions. By definition, self-builds happened in the evening and weekends which would spoil the leisure of the neighbouring property and could result in an indefinite build period. The objector asked that the application be rejected because of the unacceptable impact on his property, the loss of privacy and the right to enjoy that property.

46.17        A Member explained why he could not support this application which were for the same reasons he had been unable to support the original application and had been well documented at that time. It had been his view, and he remained of that opinion, that this was piecemeal development of what was a bigger A1 strategic site which should be considered as a whole. Another Member referred to the concerns raised by the objector in relation to construction times and questioned whether it was possible to add a condition restricting the times during the day and weekends that construction could take place. The Planning Officer indicated that this was something that could be done although it was not general practice in circumstances such as these in terms of a single plot; someone could build a garage in their back garden under permitted development rights with no restriction on construction times and any resulting noise nuisance would be dealt with under different legislation. Equally, given the close proximity of this development to the neighbouring property it was possible to add a condition restricting construction hours. She suggested, and the Member agreed, that the hours 8am – 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturday were in line with the norm and could be added to the conditions should the development be permitted. Another Member referred to the plans for the development and particularly the dormer windows which appeared to him to look out over open fields. He indicated that the objector had been very concerned about overlooking and he queried whether this would be the case. He maintained that if the objector lived at the Haven he could not see from the plans how this property would be overlooked although he acknowledged that the development would have an impact on the Haven. The Planning Officer confirmed the Member’s understanding and drew attention to the site layout plan which showed where the windows would be in relation to the neighbouring properties. She confirmed that the objector lived at the Haven and with the aid of the plan she demonstrated that the dormer windows of the development would look out to the west overlooking the garden of the proposed development whilst the Haven was situated to the south of the development. There were two roof lights proposed on the rear elevation to the east and to prevent any overlooking of the property known as Applegarth, a condition was proposed to secure obscure glazing with limited opening. There were no windows on the south elevation that would overlook the Haven although potentially the dormer windows could look over the rear garden of that property but that type of linear positioning was not uncommon for residential development. The Member reminded the Committee that a permission for development on this site already existed and he proposed that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation. The proposal was seconded. A discussion took place on the need to ensure that no further openings would be permitted under permitted development rights on the east elevation roof of the development in order to protect the amenity of Applegarth and the Planning Officer confirmed an additional condition to be added which would restrict such permitted development rights beyond the proposed two roof lights on the east elevation only.

46.18        During the discussion which ensued, a Member stated that whilst, she appreciated that a permission had already been granted for development on this plot, she was of the view that the changes to the original plans which were approved were substantial and she had a great deal of sympathy with the objector and the occupants of the surrounding houses. These houses were not at this point in time part of a linear development and neither did they want them to be; the addition of another floor to this development would greatly impact upon their lives and for these reasons she could not support this development. A Member referred to the debate that had taken place earlier concerning the addition of a condition restricting the hours of construction and sought clarification as to whether this was feasible bearing in mind the relaxation of construction hours put in place by the government in response to COVID-19 as he was aware that this had happened in respect of the development taking place at Innsworth. The Development Manager confirmed that there was now an application process in place which developers could go through which allowed for the loosening of construction times imposed by planning conditions. Nevertheless, if the Committee felt that it was necessary to put a condition on this development restricting construction times for the reasons explained earlier he felt that any loosening of such a condition would be resisted. However, he was mindful of the fact that a planning permission already existed on this plot without such a condition and therefore he questioned whether it would be reasonable to impose such a restriction for these revised proposals. In his view it was a moot point as to whether the changes were substantial in their entirety but, in terms of the construction phase, it was probably not substantially different in terms of the amount of time it would take to construct the dwelling so whilst it was possible to add a condition restricting construction times he questioned whether it would be reasonable in the absence of a restriction on the existing planning permission. The Member who had suggested the construction hours restriction indicated that she had been going to check whether the motion that had been proposed and seconded included the restriction on construction; she was of the view that as the original approved proposal was single storey and the application now in front of the Committee was two storey there would be considerable additional construction works resulting from the addition of a first floor and a condition to cover this should be added if at all possible. Another Member referred to the debate on removing permitted development rights for any further openings on the east elevation of the development to protect the amenity rights of Applegarth and queried whether permitted development rights should be removed for any openings on the south side of the development to protect the amenity rights of the Haven. The Development Manager stated that this was a matter for Members judgement should they wish to see a restriction in permitted development rights for the east and south elevations in respect of openings this was certainly something which could be included if Members considered this to be reasonable. The proposer and seconder indicated that they were happy to include within their motion the addition of conditions on restricted construction hours and the removal of permitted development rights for any openings on the south elevation of the dwelling and no further openings on the east elevation.

46.19        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That, subject to the addition of a condition restricting construction times to 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturday and the removal of permitted development rights for any openings on the south elevation and any additional openings on the east elevation, the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

Supporting documents: