Agenda item

Addition of single storey glass canopy to rear elevation of property.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the proposed addition of a single storey glass canopy to the rear elevation of property (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and plans of the proposed layout. She further provided details of the lengthy planning history of the site.

Mr P Winton, local resident was in attendance to speak in objection to the application. He also provided a summary of the planning history noting that the dwelling had been subjected to peace meal development enlarging it to over 50% of its original floorspace. He further detailed the enforcement activity which had taken place noting that further to recommendations made by the authority, the owner had taken the decision not to apply for a certificate of lawful development.

He further noted that the applicant and officers report dismissed the potential threat the canopy would have on birdlife.

He advised that as a neighbour he had been subjected to light and noise disturbance and felt that the unsympathetic development of the whole site, including the use of materials which were not in keeping with the original building or surrounding buildings, resulted in a highly obtrusive visual impact on the landscape. He therefore urged members to protect the Derwent Valley and refuse the application.

The Solicitor advised Members that their role was not to enquire into the planning enforcement history in relation to this property but to determine the current application on its own merits and if the objector was dissatisfied with the way in which the enforcement investigation was undertaken, he could take that up separately..

Councillor Shield commented that the application in his opinion contravened Saved Local Policies GDP1, EN1, EN3 and H019. He noted that although the property may not be obtrusive from the A694 during the day, it was however on an evening when floodlit. In addition a public right of way was a mere 15 metres away and the proposed canopy would be visible from this point.

Councillor Boyd added that she to have grave concerns regarding the proposed extension and sympathised with the local residents’ concerns, however acknowledged that the proposal by Councillor Shield may not be strong enough to warrant refusal.

Councillor McGaun asked whether the proposed extension was being put on to something which didn’t already have permission. Clarification was provided regarding the unauthorised development, which due to the passing of time meant it was too late to enforce against and a Lawful Development Certificate application could not be insisted upon. The Planning Officer also advised that orangery did have permission which had been granted under delegated powers.

Councillor Milburn asked what the intended use of the extension was. The Planning Officer advised that it was not stated in the application however it was thought that it was intended for entertaining.

Further discussion took place regarding the layout of the site and it was noted that the proposed extension was to the rear of the dwelling and although visible from the PROW it would not be visible from the main road.

Councillor Wilson added although sympathetic to the objectors concerns he felt that the committee’s hands were tied on this occasion. He therefore MOVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions as listed within the report.

Councillor Boyd SECONDED the proposal.

Councillor Shield then proceeded to MOVE that the application be refused on the grounds that it contravened policies GDP1, EN1, EN3 and H019 of the Saved Derwentside Local Plan.

There was no seconder to Councillor Shield’s proposal.

Following a vote being taken it was

Resolved: That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as listed within the report.