Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding a single storey rear extension and single storey side extension to 47 Beech Close, Brasside, Durham (for copy see file of minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Dr E Jones addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application on behalf of a resident who lived adjacent to the applicant. The objector was uncertain as to how the extension would connect to her property but believed that connecting boundary walls would increase the risk of dampness from the flat roof. Issues regarding damp were already being experienced due to poor workmanship on the guttering of the property. Dr Jones referred to the Party Wall Act which gave guidance on the thickness of cement and felting which must be used between properties.

Dr Jones advised that the objector was concerned that the connection would change the status of the property from detached to terraced and according to an estate agent would devalue the property by £10,000. She was also concerned that the applicant may decide to develop a first floor extension in the future.

The applicant had made no provision for bin storage which the objector believed would end up being left on the street. The objector had requested that should the application be approved, a condition be imposed to restrict the hours of building works to 9am - 5pm Monday to Friday. Furthermore it was requested that a further condition be imposed requiring bin storage to be included at the property.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

• The standard of workmanship on the roof of the property was not a material planning consideration, nor was the potential devaluation of the objectors property;
• The imposition of a condition restricting the hours of works was not usual for applications of this scale, however Members could require such a condition if it was felt necessary;
• Should the applicant wish to extend on the garage in the future, that application would have to be considered on own merits;
• An informative could be applied to the application for the applicant to consider the provision of bin storage, though a condition would not be usual practice.

The Solicitor added that the issues relating to the Party Wall Act were private legal matters and not relevant to the Committee’s consideration of the application.

Councillor A Bell acknowledged that private matters are out of the hands of the Committee and indicated that he would approve the application with the addition of conditions limiting the times for building works and addressing the storage for bins.

Councillor M Davinson stated that he observed 2 sets of bins on the street during the earlier site visit. He had since contacted the relevant service to have wardens inspect and ensure the street remained clear.

Councillor K Dearden felt that it would be unfair to prevent the application as a neighbouring property had been granted the same permission previously.

Upon a vote being taken it was,

Resolved:

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in the report and an additional condition considered necessary by the Committee relating to working hours, together with an informative relating to bin storage, with responsibility for the wording of the additional condition delegated to the Principal Planning Officer.