Agenda item

First floor front extension and attached garage.

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 a first-floor extension and attached garage and was recommended for refusal.

The Principal Planning Officer noted the application was at Committee at the request of the Local Member in terms of consideration of visual amenity.  He referred the Committee to plans, aerial photographs and elevations and noted that the key issue was of overlooking to the neighbouring property and separation distances.

Members noted there had been no objections from the Highways Section, though noted some concerns.  It was added that Ecology had not objected, and that should the application be approved they would request that an informative be included as regards bats. 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the Tree Officer had raised no objections, however, they had advised to ensure that during construction care was taken to protect a neighbouring hedge.  He added that there had been no responses to neighbour notification letters.

The Principal Planning Officer noted the application was in a sustainable location and the principle of an extension was acceptable.  He noted, however, that the impact upon residential amenity for the adjacent bungalow was considered to be an issue.  It was explained the guidance set out a separation distance of 13.5 metres between a gable wall and a window of and adjacent property.  The Principal Planning Officer noted in this case the separation distances were 11 metres from the first-floor level, and only 6.5 metres from the garage.  He added that the site levels meant that this impact would be felt more significantly, albeit the neighbour affected had not objected themselves, and therefore the recommendation was for refusal.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Members for their comments and questions.

Councillor A Laing proposed that the application be refused as per the Officer report, she was seconded by Councillor J Shuttleworth.

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED.