Agenda item

Erection of a two storey side and rear extension, rendering to side elevation, new boundary wall to frontage and erection of new boundary fence.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of a two storey side and rear extension, rendering to side elevation , new boundary wall to frontage and erection of new boundary fence at 10 Redhills Lane, Durham, DH1 4AJ (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.Members were advised that since the report had been published an objection had been received from the City of Durham Trust who were uneasy about size of proposed extensions to this house, and urge that a condition restricting use to C3 is attached.

Councillor N Martin, local Member, addressed the Committee, advising that the adjacent neighbours of the application site had wished to speak at the meeting, however had been on holiday and so were unable to register in time.

Councillor Martin advised that it was the proposed extension to the rear of the property which was the main concern. The proposal was for a 7m extension which was virtually the full length of the garden. The proposed extension was to have a pitched roof on both sides with the ridgeline to be level with the first floor windows. Councillor Martin found this to be very high when compared to the neighbouring property.

A substantially smaller extension would be less intrusive and would minimise the impact on the neighbouring property. As such Councillor Martin found the proposals to be overdevelopment of the site which would have an overbearing impact on the immediate neighbouring property. In referring to discussions on the previous application, Councillor Martin was again concerned about future use and as such requested that a C3 condition be imposed should permission be granted.

Councillor G Holland had been on the site visit that morning and on seeing the site first hand, felt the proposed rear extension would swallow up too much of the garden area and stretch the boundary of the approved Local Plan. Although he acknowledged that a single storey extension of up to 4 metres in height could be built under permitted development rights, Councillor Holland felt that the proposed extension failed to meet the requirements of Local Plan Policies H13, E14 and Q9.

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

·         C3 Condition – the property would only be a 4 bedroom dwelling, as such a C3 restriction would not be appropriate.

·         Size of rear extension – a substantial extension could still be built within permitted development rights and Members were advised that the Government had relaxed certain areas with the recently introduced permitted development regime, which now allowed for developers to build up to twice as much as they would previously have been permitted to. Any such applications would be subject to consultation with neighbours and with the Planning Authority, but Members were advised that such applications should also be viewed positively given the new acceptability of such extensions through the new permitted development regime.

·         Right to a View – Committee was advised that no one had a right to a view and it was questionable how much of a view the neighbouring properties had in the past, as it was evident there had been much planting on the site previously.

Councillor Dixon shared the concerns raised regarding the extension which he felt would have an overbearing impact and was out of proportion, in particular the proposals would have a significant impact on the direct neighbouring property.

Councillor Clark queried whether there would be an option to request the applicant to reduce the height of the pitched roof, thus lessening the impact on the neighbouring property.

The Principal Planning Officer advised he was unsure whether technically that would be feasible due to the potential ingress of water into the roof tiles if the angle of pitch was too shallow.

In response to a query from Councillor Robinson, the Principal Planning Officer advised that there was increasing case law regarding  Planning Inspectorate decisions that overturned Planning Authority decisions.

Councillor Bleasdale did not feel that there was any identifiable justification for refusing permission and as such, seconded by Councillor Lethbridge, moved that the application be approved.

Upon a vote being taken it was:-

Resolved:- That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.