Agenda item

Loft conversion with flat roof dormers and velux windows, installation of solar panels.

The Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie, 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 a loft conversion with flat roof dormer and velux windows, installation of solar panels and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Principal Planning Officer referred to plans, images and aerial photographs to show the context of the site, noting Members on the site visit had the opportunity to view the application site from the main road through a gap in Front Street.

The Committee were reminded of an intervening strip of land between the application site and properties at Front Street and the trees, screening and hedgerows at the site.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that there had been no objections from the Highways Section and no objections from the Ecology Team, though they suggested an informative advising on conditions relating to bats.

Members noted there had been objections from three properties in Front Street, noting: loss of garden privacy; the proposed dormer presenting privacy issues as it would face rear bedroom windows of properties on Front Street; and objections in relation to the materials and finishes to be used on the dormer roof windows and walls.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that national and local policy supported improvements to residential properties and added that Officers did not feel that the impact upon residential and visual amenity was sufficient to warrant refusal.  He added that the gardens in question were already overlooked and that the materials largely matched with a variety of house styles and materials being used in the area.  He concluded by reiterating that the recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Mr Alan Clarke, local resident to speak in objection to the application.

Mr A Clarke thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted he had read the report and the recommendation.  He noted that he wished to speak in relation to the loss of privacy that would result from the proposals and in terms of the materials not being in keeping with the setting.

Mr A Clarke explained that the Council acknowledged within paragraph 35 of the report that the property would become two storey and within paragraph 33 that there would be potential for increased overlooking.  He added that while the Officer stated that there was not specific separation distance protection for garden space, he felt that Members would not feel this was correct if they visited.  Mr A Clarke noted that there were areas of his garden that were currently private and not overlooked and the proposals would mean that his sheltered garden would absolutely be overlooked from the dormer window. 

Mr A Clarke noted that saved City of Durham Local Plan Policy Q10 in respect of dormer windows stated that they would be permitted where “…it does not result in any loss of privacy for surrounding properties”.  Mr A Clarke noted that accordingly, the application was contrary to the Policy Q10, not in accord as stated by the Planning Officer within the report.

Mr A Clarke noted that there had been no consultation or mitigation proposed, the first notice he had as regards the proposals was when the planning application process had notified him.  He added that had he been given the opportunity he would have suggested the applicant rotate the roof by 180 degrees such that the applicant would only be overlooking their own property. 

Mr A Clarke explained that Paragraph 128 of the NPPF stated that “Applications that can demonstrate early, proactive and effective engagement with the community should be looked on more favourably than those that cannot”.

Mr A Clarke noted that he would lose privacy even he was to raise the height of wall to two metres, at his own expense.

Mr A Clarke noted in respect of materials, he noted saved City of Durham Local Plan Policy Q9 noted in respect of alterations and extensions that they would be permitted “…provided that the design, scale and materials are sympathetic to the main dwelling and the character and appearance of the area…”.  He added that he did not feel this was the case, and that the proposed use of wood was unprecedented in the area.

Mr A Clarke noted that within the report the hours of any proposed works was not stated and added that the road accessing the site was not a wide road.  He explained that before 9.00am and after 5.00-6.00pm there was no space in the street and there was a turning head and parking opposite and suggested that should works be carried out they be 9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday.

The Chairman thanked Mr A Clarke and asked the Principal Planning Officer to comment on the points raised by Mr A Clarke.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that in terms of the loss of privacy, the report did acknowledge some loss, however, it was felt this was not sufficient to warrant refusal, in the context of there already being a degree of overlooking existing.  As regards the opportunity to comment upon the application, the applicant had engaged in pre-application consultation with Officers, and the Principal Planning Officer noted that it was not a requirement for the applicant to consult with neighbours, though it could be advantageous.

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments.

Councillor I Jewell noted that the site visit had been very useful for Members and asked as regards the separation distances.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that this was set out within paragraph 32 of the report, with the distance standard being 21 metres, window to window, and the distance from the proposed development to 52 Front Street being approximately 35 metres, and 53 and 54 Front Street being approximately 38 metres.

Councillor P Taylor noted he had sympathy with the resident that had spoken, however, in planning terms he did not feel there was sufficient reasons to sustain a refusal reason and therefore proposed the application be approved as set out within the report.  Councillor I Jewell seconded the proposal.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the report.