Agenda item

Proposed two storey extensions and single storey extensions to side and rear and erection of porch to front.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for proposed two storey extensions and a single storey extensions to side and rear and erection of porch to front and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Principal Planning Officer noted a window in the neighbouring property, facing on to the application site and the existing and proposed elevations were shown.

It was explained that there had been no representations from the Parish Council, and no objections from the Highways Section if there was two off-street parking spaces.  Members noted that one letter of objection had been received making reference to: the inappropriate scale and massing of the proposal; loss of light for the neighbouring property; impact upon amenity; and not being in keeping with area.

The Principal Planning Officer noted Members had been able to judge the impact on view while on site and added that Planning Officers felt the extensions were acceptable.

In terms of the neighbouring property, it was noted that the window in question was one of a number serving that room, with patio doors to the rear and therefore Planners felt that there was not an issue in terms of light.  It was added that while there would be some impact, it was not felt that there were sufficient grounds for refusal.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that on site, the applicant had mentioned issues such as the “45 degree rule” and a skylight to be funded by the applicant.  He added in the case of the skylight, this was an issue that could not be imposed via planning conditions on a neighbour and it was felt in any event such a skylight would not have much impact.  The Principal Planning Officer added that the “45 degree rule” did not apply in Durham, however, it was not felt that that the application would impinge in any case.

The Principal Planning Officer concluded by noting that it was felt the proposals were acceptable, have limited impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

The Chairman thanked Principal Planning Officer and asked Ms L Mann who would be speaking on behalf of Ms A Potter, owner of the neighbouring property, in objection to the application.

Ms L Mann thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to speak, and Members who were able to visit the site earlier in the day.  Ms L Mann noted that Ms A Potter had three areas of concern, firstly the loss of natural light and sunlight.  It was noted that the application proposed an extension very close to the boundary, an issue that was in dispute, and that it would be catastrophic in terms of light entering the kitchen.  She added there would be no sunlight in the afternoon from the patio facing west, and the other window facing a brick wall, if the application were approved.

Ms L Mann added that, secondly, Ms A Potter’s kitchen was a main living area, utilising the back garden and the significant loss of sunlight with the extension alongside the garden would be contrary to saved City of Durham Local Plan Policy Q9. It was added that this would be a significant loss of amenity for Ms A Potter and would have a detrimental impact, which perhaps would not be so great if the proposed extension was not so big.

Ms L Mann added that, thirdly, there would be a loss of privacy in terms of the bathroom window, which would directly face the proposed bathroom window opposite.  It was added that this would be a very short distance away and whilst frosted glass, they would be in fact so close together that it would be possible to shake hands across the distance.  Ms L Mann noted that indeed the architect’s design was such to incorporate a window that opened inward and added that at night time privacy would be also affected due to the close proximity of the windows.

Ms L Mann noted that therefore the issues of scale and magnitude, loss of light, loss of amenity and loss of privacy meant that there would be detriment to Ms A Potter and therefore the application should be refused.  Ms L Mann added that deeds highlighted the ownership of the posts being with No.7 Abbey Road.

The Chairman thanked Ms L Mann, noting her five minutes had elapsed.  Ms L Mann noted she had not heard a forewarning as regards having one minute remaining and therefore wished to continue.  The Chairman and Committee Members noted that the forewarning had been given and it had been audible.  The Chairman asked the Solicitor - Planning and Development and the Principal Planning Officer to comment on the issues raised.

The Solicitor - Planning and Development noted that the issues in terms of the boundary and posts were a private legal matter and not something the Committee could consider.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the proposed extension was large, however, the Officer recommendation and professional judgement was that the application be approved.  He added Members of the Committee had visited the site and would therefore be able to make a decision based upon this.  In response to the issue of the bathroom windows, the Principal Planning Officer noted the use of obscure glazing and while the windows were close, it was not felt that there would be an impact upon privacy.

The Chairman noted Ms L Mann wished to speak further, however explained that she had used her allotted time and was not permitted to speak again or over the top of the Chairman or Committee Members.

Councillor J Robinson moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor A Laing.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.

Councillor O Temple entered the meeting

Councillor A Surtees left the meeting