Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Pitched roof extension over existing garage, erection of a side and rear extension, rear dormer extension and replacement doors and windows.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

64.47        This was an application for a pitched roof extension over existing garage, erection of a side and rear extension, rear dormer extension and replacement doors and windows.

64.48        The Planning Officer explained that this proposal was to replace doors and windows on the dwelling and increase the living space at ground and first floor level by extending over the existing garage, erecting side and rear extensions and rear dormer extensions, including the addition of two balconies.A Committee determination was required as Woodmancote Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds of concerns that the extension would take the dwelling too close to the boundary, which would be detrimental to the open character of the area. A site notice had been displayed for a period of 21 days and one letter of representation was received with an additional letter being received after this period, following the submission of amended plans. Both representations raised objections to the proposal based on the potential harm to residential amenity caused by the proposed balconies.The Parish Council’s concerns had been considered, however it was the view of Officers that the development would not be too close to the boundary with the neighbouring property, nor would it harm the open character of the area as side access would be maintained to the west. In addition, it was the view of Officers that appropriate measures had been taken to limit the impact of overlooking on the neighbouring properties, to an acceptable level, as shown in the revised scheme, and as such, it was recommended that the application be permitted. 

64.49        The Chair invited the representative of the objector to address the Committee. He advised that he represented the occupiers of the neighbouring property who objected to the application in the strongest possible terms. He stressed that his clients did not object to Farringdon being altered in principle, indeed, they had also applied for permission to extend their property. It was the nature of the proposal that was of concern which, if allowed, would cause a highly detrimental impact on their living conditions by virtue of overlooking and overbearing impacts from the proposed first floor balconies and bi-fold doors. Those features were proposed to be sited directly adjacent to their boundary and on higher ground. The original overlooking issue was acknowledged by Officers and the plans had been amended toinclude obscure glazed screens on the balcony and with set-back railings. Whilst the attempt was noted, those features unfortunately did not address the problem and there would still be direct overlooking from what was still a very large balcony area at 8.4 sqm. There could be no real control over the level of obscurity and, in any event, there would be at least a perception of overlooking. He expressed concern at the Officer’s assertion at paragraph 7.16 that the proposal would have “no adverse impact on the private amenity space” of the neighbour. To say it would have an acceptable impact was one thing, but to say “no impact” was incredible and he was worried that this had not been properly considered. It was also material to note that his client’s property currently had a balcony that sat within the centre of the plot. However, their current planning application proposed to remove that feature and they were doing that because they felt uncomfortable themselves with the overlooking it caused to their neighbours, meaning they did not use the balcony. It was therefore ironic that this application proposedto introduce a feature at even closer proximity, when his clients were going above and beyond to remove that relationship. It was also considered that the proposed balconies and screens failed to respect the character of the residential area. The site fell within the Woodmancote Conservation Area and the balcony and screens were visible from a variety of vantage points, including Stockwell Lane. The introduction of glazed screens at first floor level would appear alien and highly uncharacteristic of this area as they were not features that would typically be associated with the Conservation Area. To quote the Conservation Officer’s consultation, “Balconies are not generally encouraged within Conservation Areas as they are often visible from a distance” and “In this case it is likely that the balcony on the West side will be visible from Stockwell Lane and would appear incongruous. The balconies are neither necessary or desirable within the conservation area”. Based on that analysis, it would be reasonable to conclude that there would be harm to the Conservation Area and, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, it followed that permission should be refused as there were no public benefits to outweigh the harm. The objector felt the true impact of the proposal on the living conditions of his client’s property could only be properly appreciated on site. The application site was on a higher ground level than his client’s property and the close proximity of the balcony to their garden would have a truly detrimental impact on their living conditions to a degree that they could not possibly consider living at the property if this development went ahead. He suggested that, if Members were minded to do anything other than refuse the application, they should defer it for a site visit - he realised the difficulty of conducting site visits at present, but to grant permission without having seen the impact first hand would be unsound in his view.

64.50        A Member referred to the pictures that had been shown to the Committee and expressed the view that, in his opinion, the balcony to the west would have a detrimental effect on the neighbours and he questioned whether the application could be permitted excluding that balcony. The Development Manager indicated that if this was what Members wished to achieve he would advise a delegated permit subject to amended plans which omitted that element. He stated that, whilst on occasions previously a split decision had been suggested, in this instance it was not that straightforward as the balcony was not easily divisible from the rest of the scheme. The Member who had asked the question proposed a delegated permit with revised plans excluding the western balcony; he felt this balcony was quite a lot higher and even with the mitigation of frosted glass the impact of six feet of frosted glass high up in the air was unacceptable. He maintained that if this was a second storey extension the effects of which were similar it probably would not be permitted. A Member questioned where the Committee would stand with the delegated permit if the applicant refused to amend the plans to omit the balcony on the western side and expressed the view that, in the light of the Committee’s unhappiness with this balcony and its impact on the neighbouring property, perhaps it would be better to refuse the application allowing the applicant, being aware of the concerns of Members, to submit new plans. The Development Manager indicated that the Committee would only be giving delegation in the event of plans being received removing the balcony but it was a matter for Members to determine how they would wish to take it forward; it was probably a more positive decision to say yes we can grant you this permission but without the balcony to the west and we can move forward positively or the applicant could say no the plans would not be revised in which case the application would come back to the Committee for determination. Concerns were expressed about the possibility of revised plans being approved without the balcony but it then being built with retrospective consent being sought and the view was expressed that it would be better to refuse the application. The Development Manager indicated that this was not about retrospective planning consents but amending the proposals to something which the Committee would be happy with which was what the proposal was aimed at if that was the will of Members. Potentially, if the applicant wished to revisit a balcony to the west in future, a further application could be made but it was not the intention that this would be retrospective as it would be a different proposal at a different time. Another Member suggested a compromise to defer the application to give the applicant the opportunity to submit revised plans without the balcony to the west that way there was no delegated permit or refusal of the application which might allay the concerns expressed by some Members. One Member questioned whether there was any objection to the balcony on the other side and it was explained that this balcony was not as close to the neighbouring property, it was not as high and there was nowhere near the same degree of overlooking. From the debate which ensued it was apparent that a number of Members were more comfortable with a deferral to allow for the submission of revised plans taking account of the Committee’s views in respect of the western balcony. As there was no seconder for the proposal for a delegated permit it was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to allow for the submission of revised plans without the balcony to the west of the property and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED to allow for the submission of revised plans that did not include the balcony to the western side of the property.