Link to homepage

Agenda item

20/01182/FUL - 4 Cranford Close, Woodmancote

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension.




72.56        This was an application for the erection of a single storey rear extension. 

72.57        The Planning Officer explained that this proposal was to add a single storey rear extension to the property which had been extended previously - the proposed extension would attach to extended elements of the dwelling. A Committee determination was required as Woodmancote Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds that the proposed extension would be too close to the boundary and would harm the open character of the area, representing overdevelopment of the site.  A site notice was displayed for 21 days and one letter of representation was received from a neighbour, raising issues over amenity. The scheme was revised, and a revised site notice displayed for an additional 14 days. The same objection was maintained.The Parish Council’s concerns had been considered, however it was the view of Officers that the proposal, as revised, would be located an acceptable distance from the boundary with a neighboring property and would not have a harmful impact on the wider area. The site was considered large enough to accommodate the extension and whilst there would be an impact of overshadowing, affecting the adjacent neighbour’s garden, this would not be considered adversely harmful considering the existing situation. As such, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

72.58        The Chair invited the objector to address the Committee. He referred to an impact analysis which had been undertaken to demonstrate the harmful impact and counter effects of allowing the planning application proposal 20/01182/FUL and the impact it would have on both himself and his family members who resided at the neighbouring property. He indicated that this was actually the fourth extension to this property; there had been large 2 storey extensions to the front and back of the property as well as an extension to the side.The extension now proposed by the owner of 4 Cranford Close would, in his view, have a large impact on his residential amenities by causing naturallight deprivation to his patio and garden area caused by overshadowing and would in turn create an oppressive andoverbearing environment. On reviewing the proposed new extension, the top of the roof  facing the side wall would be over 1.17 to 1.32 metres higher than the 6ft fence that was currently there, using the Idox measuring tool from the planning portal, which he felt  would be overbearing and cause shadowing of the patio area and would diminish the light in the garden area by a quarter. Again, using the measurements from the Idox system he had superimposed what the proposed extension would look like using a photograph he had taken to understand how it would sit so close to the boundary as he felt the 3D Computer Aided Design Modelling document submitted bythe applicant did not really demonstrate the impact and aesthetics nor how the new building would sit in the natural environment.Taking into consideration the sun track through the different seasons, it was demonstrated that sun light would be lost through the year dueto over shadowing. Cranford Close was built on a staggered downward slope from the top of the Close thus causing the height difference between his property andthat of his neighbour which, by measuring the difference in height of both properties internal floor height when measuring atground level in his garden to the damp proof course of No. 4 the difference was in excess of 790mm. In conclusion he stated that although his conservatory could not be accepted as a habitable room, it was used constantly throughout the year and due to the extent of his family and their needs the loss of light caused by the over shadowing would make the use of this space oppressive.

72.59        A Member indicated that following the representation that had been received by the neighbour she was quite concerned by the application and would like a site visit but if this could not be done then she would certainly like to see more evidence as to how this development was going to impact on the neighbour. Therefore, her proposal was that this application should be deferred either for a site visit, depending whether that would be possible, or for a substantial video taken in particular from the neighbours property to assess the impact on that property of these proposals. She referred to the plan on Page 291 which showed all of the extension very close to the boundary and this caused her some concern to the extent she did not feel able to make a decision at today’s meeting. In seconding the motion the Member expressed his concerns also and was of the view that a site inspection should take place if possible. Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be DEFERRED either for a site inspection to take place or for a substantial video to be provided taken in particular from the neighbouring property.

Supporting documents: