Agenda item

Retention of single-storey extensions at side and rear of dwelling and excavation/boundary works to rear

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the retention of single storey extensions at side and rear of dwelling and excavation/boundary works to rear at 4 Foxton Way, High Shincliffe, Durham, DH1 2PJ (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Team Leader, Central & East, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site. Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting. The officer read out a letter from the local Member, Councillor Stoker who wished to object to the application.

Councillor Stoker had written that permitted development rights had been used as the basis for the application for two large extensions on a relatively small plot, however he believed there had been a breach of those rights on both extensions. He therefore felt that planning permission should not be granted for the following reasons:

1.    It breached the principles of Permitted Development.

2.    The breaches in Permitted Development (circa 3 inches in height in one extension, and circa 6 inches wider in the second extension) may appear minor, however they now required planning permission. Permission should not be given because of any de minimis argument as the de minimis argument had already been utilised for the Permitted Development elements and to use it twice was a contradiction in terms.

3.    There should be limited tolerance on the grounds of a series of ‘honest mistakes’ by the applicant. The applicant has rejected, over 3 months, numerous opportunities to submit plans to building control and planning permissions as suggested and requested by Planning, Enforcement and Building Control Officers.

Mr Mowle, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application and presented to Members a powerpoint presentation (for copy see file of Minutes). The slides showed pictures detailing congestion in the street and at the nearby primary school, construction vehicles on site, the 2 metres gap between his property and the application property, and the impact that the development had in terms of blocking light.

The Team Leader responded to points raised as follows:-

• Building Control issues was a separate issue, not relevant when determining the planning application;
• Issues relating to the Party Wall Act would be civil issues.

Mr S Edwards, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. He advised that the professional planning officer had concluded that the proposals were considered to be of an appropriate design and scale which would not result in a negative impact on the visual amenity of the street scene. Furthermore, there was no suggestion that there would be any detrimental impact on the adjoining properties and as such the recommendation was that the application be approved.

Mr Edwards advised that throughout the process the applicant had been conscious of the impact of the development on neighbours and as such had engaged in informal consultation with them. Where possible, the applicant had attempted to comply with reasonable requests from neighbours.

Members were advised that the applicant had complied with all relevant statutory authorities throughout the process and the letters of objection actually generated a number of concerns, none of which appeared to be relevant in the context of planning.

Mr Edwards advised that the design and layout of the development met the current planning requirements of national, regional and local policy and there was insufficient negative impact on the residential amenity of nearby properties that would warrant refusal of the application. It was highlighted that on the east side of the street there was actually a very large extension that was twice the height of the applicant’s extension. Mr Edwards highlighted many other properties in the street which had much more imposing extensions.

Members were advised that the property had been tastefully extended using the best materials and design and while the applicant sympathised with Mr Mowle, Mr Edwards highlighted that the concerns raised were not planning related.

In relation to concerns raised regarding the Party Wall Act, Members were advised that the extension had been constructed on the applicant’s side.

Councillor Moir concluded that the Committee Meeting was not a vehicle for resolving neighbour disputes and as such he was happy to follow the officer recommendations and moved approval of the application.

In response to a query from Councillor Kay, the Team Leader clarified that the applicant had commenced the works believing that he could do them under permitted development rights. However following neighbour complaints, it became apparent that the works required planning permission, hence the retrospective application.

Councillor Bell seconded the motion for approval, stating that having viewed the property on the site visit, it was clear that it was in keeping with the surrounding area.

In response to a query from Councillor Conway, the Solicitor clarified that legislation allowed for retrospective planning applications

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report.