Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Single storey rear and two storey side extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

37.33        This application was for a single storey rear and two storey side extension.

37.34        The Planning Assistant explained that this was a householder application in relation to a detached property on an estate on the outskirts of Tewkesbury.  A Committee determination was required as the applicant was a Tewkesbury Borough Council employee.  No objections had been received from the statutory consultee but a letter of objection had been received following neighbour notification consultations.  The Officer view was that the proposal was in keeping with the surrounding development and would not result in any undue harm to the occupants of the neighbouring dwellings as outlined in the Committee report.  As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, the Officer recommendation had been changed from permit to delegated permit to enable an amended block plan to be submitted; the Planning Assistant confirmed the amended plan had been received this morning so the delegation would now be to permit subject to the amendment of condition 2 to reflect the revised plan 

37.35        The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that she was speaking on behalf of herself and her husband who lived directly next door to the property.  She explained that the section of Stonehills estate where they lived had been cleverly designed – whilst they lived close to one another, the properties were situated so they could co-exist with reasonable expectation of privacy.  There was an open plan and spacious feel to it; they were, and felt, detached.  Their homes were separated from each other via a passageway and a garage meaning they did not live in one another’s pockets; as far as she was aware this was an unusual bit of planning and one they appreciated as gardens were afforded space and light without being unduly overlooked.  There were a few properties on the estate that had added a second storey above their garages, or put extensions on the rear, but that had been done on houses where it would not impact a neighbour in any significant way; sadly, that would not be the case with these two homes.  The proposed second storey extension would mean a loss of privacy from the upstairs window, unless it was to be a bathroom window with frosted glass.  If not, the window would give a direct and almost unimpeded view of their garden and them using it.  By far the largest impact would be the extension of the garage footprint along their boundary for the single storey addition.  What was now a regular height fence would become a much higher, much more imposing, brick wall directly within eyesight.  This would alter the feel and appearance of their outdoor space and, to some extent, their inside space, in a way they would not choose and was not part of the original attraction of the estate.  By converting the garage into living accommodation, the valued degree of separation was removed; however, it was the extension of the single storey that brought the living accommodation of No. 26 directly into their space so when they looked out of the kitchen window, or their conservatory, they would not see a fence, a few plants and the sky but the side of a house, with its accompanying roof, facia and soffits – No. 26 would be in their garden with no separation at all.  Not only would this reduce light into that area of the garden but also to their kitchen and, having looked at the plans, they believed it would give a significant feeling of enclosure.  The local resident therefore asked Members to consider the fact that good fences made good neighbours and this extension did not make a good fence, as such, she respectfully requested that the application be refused.

37.36        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the amendment of condition 2 to reflect the revised plan, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member asked how much of the proposal could be carried out under permitted development rights in normal circumstances and the Planning Assistant explained that, because the garage was slightly set back, if it stayed in the same aspect, technically it would be a side extension as well as a rear extension so the rear section proposed could not be carried out under permitted development rights.  It may be possible to construct a small extension off the garage under permitted development rights but that was not something he had looked into in any detail.  In terms of the second storey aspect, the Planning Assistant confirmed that could not be carried out under permitted development rights.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the amendment of condition 2 to reflect the revised plan.