Agenda item

Part two storey rear extension and part single storey rear extension, raising of ridge height and loft conversion, increasing from 4 to 6 bedrooms.

The Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings 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 application was for a part two storey rear extension and part single storey rear extension, raising of ridge height and loft conversion, increasing from 4 to 6 bedrooms and was recommended for approval.

 

The Planning Officer, JJ noted the plan and photographs identified the property at the end of a cul-de-sac, within a well-established estate, with a number of large detached properties.  Members were asked to note a large private garden at the rear of the property, with mature planting at the west and south sides.  It was added that the orientation of the properties within the estate was not regular and the Planning Officer, JJ referred Members to existing and proposed elevations.  She added that the design included raising the roof ridge height by 500mm, from that of an extension approved in 1995.  It was highlighted within the elevation drawings that velux style windows were proposed on the front elevation, however, these would be within permitted development and did not form part of the application under consideration.

 

The Planning Officer, JJ noted the rear elevation showed the proposed two storey element, with dormers within the hip roof, and single storey element.  It was explained that the rear extension extended three metres and the Officer referred Members to proposed floor plans, noting the connection to the double garage and the adjacent annex.

 

The Planning Officer, JJ noted there had been no objections from Northumbrian Water or the Highway Section, with objections having been received from the City of Durham Parish Council, Local Member and five local residents. 

 

It was noted that a summary of their concerns was set out within the report and included: the proposals being out of scale; having a negative impact; increased vehicle activity and pressure on parking; and concerns as regards potential use of the property as a house in multiple occupation (HMO).  The Planning Officer, JJ added there was a request to have additional conditions relating to the construction plan and prevention of conversion to two properties.

 

The Planning Officer, JJ noted that overall it was felt the application was not excessive in terms of scale and acceptable in design, with the ridge height not appearing obtrusive or out of character as the detached dwellings in the area were all of differing designs.  She added that a condition for details on materials would be attached to any permission granted along with an informative in relation to construction, with hours of operation to be 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, 9.00am to 2.00pm Saturday, with no works on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

 

The Planning Officer, JJ concluded by noting that any potential change to an HMO, albeit sui generis, would require a further application.

 

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, JJ and asked Parish Councillor G Holland representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in relation to the application.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and reiterated that the proposed development had raised objections from five immediate residents, from the County Councillor and the Planning Committee of the City of Durham Parish Council and therefore merited consideration by Committee.  He added that he felt it would have also merited a site visit so that Members could have evaluated for themselves the proposed development and its setting on Blaidwood Drive, with reference to its impact on neighbouring properties.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that over the years, on Planning Committees, Members had encountered proposed developments of this type that were described by the applicants as their “forever house”.  He added that this was not a planning issue because sooner or later it becomes their previous house.  He noted it was a fairly new property on a small, relatively new estate and it was hard to believe that, according to the applicant, it was already in a state of disrepair and had been for many years.  He reiterated that was not a planning issue.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted if the owner wanted to rattle around in a six bedroomed house or convert it, once completed, into an HMO, or if there was an intention to split an apparently single building into two properties, that these were also not planning issues today, they would become a problem tomorrow.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that what was being questioned was whether the proposed development represented an over-massing of the site to the extent that it overshadowed or in any way interfered with the wellbeing of those who occupy the neighbouring properties.  He added that this could not be determined just by looking at a piece of paper or a set of plans.  He noted that in such circumstances, context was important, and local neighbour evidence must be weighed in the balance.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted the determination of the application rested on four Saved Local Plan Policies: H10, H13, Q8 and Q9.

 

He added that the Officer correctly noted that H10 referred to backland development, relevant only if this was actually a development of two properties under the guise of one, and a suspicion that this might be the case or become the case was not enough.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that Policy H13, however, was an important and relevant policy because it refers to a ‘significant adverse effect on the character or appearance of this residential area or the amenities of the residents within it’.  He added that if Members thought that there was an adverse impact on the welfare of those living in this area and that the proposed development represented an over-massing of this site then the Committee should reject the application using H13.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that he felt Policies Q8 and Q9 had a similar intention and were designed to provide protection and privacy for each dwelling and to minimise the impact of any proposal upon the occupants of existing and adjacent properties.  He asked, “Does the application meet the demands of Q8 and Q9 and the well-being of the immediate neighbours?”  He noted that if it failed those tests then Members should reject the application.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland reflected that the NPPF was much pored over and much quoted.  He added that yet, because of its inevitable breadth of interpretation, it could mean all things to all men, but it was the gospel that drives all before it.  He noted that the officer identified paragraph 11 and Part 12 as key.  Parish Councillor G Holland explained that in essence they sustain the integrity of the Saved Local Plan policies and the Committee’s determination should therefore rest on those.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland concluded by noting that the question therefore was whether, on the basis of Members’ judgement of this proposed development and its location, the Committee agreed with the Officer’s judgement in paragraph 32 that “the principle of development is considered acceptable”, adding clearly others did not.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor G Holland and asked Local Member, Councillor L Brown to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor L Brown thanked the Chair and noted she was in attendance at Committee to object to the application, voicing the concerns of the residents who could not be in attendance.  She explained that she was very sorry that no site visit had been scheduled in order to give the Committee some idea of the magnitude of the already extended property.  She noted that the previous planning application approved in 1995 referred to the application as a “large extension”.  Councillor L Brown noted that the application would make a property which was already out of scale with its neighbours even larger.

 

Councillor L Brown stated that the applicant referred to raising the roof by “only” 500cm, adding that to Committee Members, like herself who were of a certain age, this was 20 inches, nearly two feet.  She noted that, together with the planned extensions, surely this represented a breach of saved policies H10 and Q9 both of which state that development would not be allowed if it was not in keeping with the scale of surrounding and adjacent residences.

 

Councillor L Brown noted a second point, namely that the extension in 1995 was built as an annexe for an aging parent, a granny flat, with one entrance through the utility room.  She added that looking at the proposed ground floor plans there appeared to be no access between the main house and the annexe.  She noted she had been assured there was one door that she hoped the Planning Officer, JJ would refer to.  Councillor L Brown noted that the annexe also had its own kitchen and bathroom when looking at the proposed first floor plans.  She added there was practically no barrier to the one property becoming two.  Councillor L Brown noted that the applicants sought to assure that they had no plans to move and that the property was their “forever home”, however, as a certain member of the House of Commons found last week, plans could change very fast.  She noted that as there was no Article 4 Direction in place for this part of Durham City, albeit with one in the pipeline, the extended property also had the potential to become a large HMO.

 

Councillor L Brown noted that she had e-mailed Planning Officers, asking for conditions to be attached to any approval.  She explained that although these had been rejected in the Committee report, the e-mail had not appeared on the Planning Portal.  Accordingly, in the interests of fair play, Councillor L Brown explained she would like to ask the Committee if they could agree two conditions if approval was to be granted: 1. That the annexe never becomes a separate residence; and 2. That a construction plan be submitted to officers.

 

Councillor L Brown noted that the access road narrows as it approached No.22 and the surface transitioned to block paving, very decorative, however, very susceptible to breakage and subsidence.  She added that any part of the second proposed condition must be that the applicants and their chosen construction company make good any damage caused to the road surface.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor L Brown and asked Mr J Ashby to speak on behalf of local residents, Mr and Mrs Weatherhill who were unable to attend the Committee.

 

Mr J Ashby thanked the Chair and reiterated he was speaking on behalf of Mr and Mrs Weatherhill, with their objection being on two main issues.

 

He explained that firstly they noted it was proposed to convert the house from a four to a six-bedroom property, including four bedrooms each with their own dedicated bathroom facility and two further bedrooms sharing a presumed additional bathroom, achieving this by converting the house from a two-storey to a three-storey building.  It was added that they felt the huge increase in physical volume of the house would make the house wholly out-of-scale compared with all other properties on the estate, none of which have more than two storeys, substantially clashing with the character of the estate.

 

Mr J Ashby stated that, secondly, Mr and Mrs Weatherhill felt the amount and type of increased accommodation would, in time, lead to extra occupation with attendant extra activity, particularly extra vehicular activity and extra demands on parking space.  He noted they felt this simply could not be supported in the restricted access/communal spaces which have to be shared with neighbouring properties and would cause substantial loss of amenity to neighbours.

 

Mr J Ashby explained that Mr and Mrs Weatherhill wished to make the Members of the Committee aware of what they believed were significant, substantial errors and shortcomings in the report.  He added they felt the report downplayed that the house was in a very prominent position with prominent visibility to the front and east side.  It was explained that when the house had previously been extended it was considered material that the extension would overlook the property at 20 Blaidwood Drive and corresponding appropriate planning provision was made for this.  It was noted that with the current application however, the report made no mention of the overlooking of that property from velux windows in the proposed new roof.  Mr J Ashby noted Mr and Mrs Weatherhill stated that the proposed veluxes would be in the sloping wall of the new attic rooms, at eye level, and would therefore act as windows that would overlook No.20.  He added they asked why had this not been addressed within the Committee Report, and accordingly, what provision could be made to prevent the unwanted overlooking.

 

 

Mr J Ashby explained that Mr and Mrs Weatherhill had stated that a number of properties would have views of the side elevation on the east of the proposed; that view of the side elevation having been described by the Parish Council Planning Committee as ‘monolithic’.  He noted that they added that the Committee Report stated that the effect of this would not be detrimental and that they felt that was plainly not true.

 

Mr J Ashby noted Mr and Mrs Weatherhill understood the applicant had stated that the house was ‘forever’.  He added they noted that unfortunately nothing was forever and that the enlarged house would not be a normal family residence with most families not requiring six bedrooms and a number of surplus bathrooms.  He explained they noted at some time in the future the house would change hands and, at that time, would attract an increased occupancy of up to 12 adults.

 

Mr J Ashby noted Mr and Mrs Weatherhill asserted that it was a fact that the site could not accommodate the associated increased activity, including increased vehicular activity and parking that would arise.  He explained that they felt the Report was simply wrong and that the plot could not support the vehicular activity that the proposals would, in time, require.

 

Mr J Ashby explained that Mr and Mrs Weatherhill felt that in addition, the narrow, blind-ending access road would not accommodate the increased vehicular movement.  They had also noted that a range of movements needed to be considered: supermarket deliveries; parcel deliveries; refuse collections; as well as occupiers’ movements.  He noted they felt it was important to recognise that the future loss of amenity would certainly happen and that the Report failed to face up to this fact.

 

Mr J Ashby noted that in conclusion Mr and Mrs Weatherhill had referred to Paragraph 43 which stated that ‘Highways’ have raised no objection adding that they questioned whether the Highways Authority had considered the inevitable increase in occupancy of the site in due course and the magnitude of the increased vehicular activity that would inevitably ensue, well above that for which the estate was originally designed.

 

The Chair thanked Mr J Ashby for speaking on behalf of Mr and Mrs Weatherhill and asked Mr G Thompson, the applicant to speak in support of his application.

 

Mr G Thompson thanked the Chair and noted while he had a fantastic speech, he would ad-lib in order to address several points raised by the speakers.  He added to his thanks to the Chair and the Committee, his thanks to the Planning Services Team, for their advice in terms of compliance and their fair assessment of the application.

 

Mr G Thompson noted objectors had questioned whether his family were in fact going to live in the property and he noted his daughters would be living with him and his wife, with one attending a local school and the other commuting from the property.  He noted it had been his dream to move to a slightly larger home, with his current house being three-storey house with five bedrooms and three bathrooms.  He added that the level of objection to the application had been very surprising and while he could not control the comments people would make in terms of the potential for the property to become an HMO, he stressed that it was not true.  He reiterated that the property was his family’s forever home, having waited ten months for the property and referred to the Officer’s comments that in any case an additional application would be required in terms of any HMO permission.  Mr G Thompson noted the style of decoration that had been undertaken, with the property having been painted white, not a colour best suited for an HMO, and had been opened-up, not what would be expected if a property for multiple non-related occupants. 

 

Mr G Thompson noted that in terms of views of the property, there were 30-foot tall trees such that the rear of the house could not realistically be seen without coming on to his property.  He added that another development nearby has velux windows at a height ten feet higher than his property, the application only seeking an increase in ridge height of only 50cm.

 

He noted he had looked at properties at Mount Oswald, however, with the property he had purchased there could be bedrooms for his daughters, a four-car drive and he felt the property was sufficiently secluded with a large garden that it would not affect the amenity of immediately neighbouring properties.  Mr G Thompson explained that the property was just a nice house and the front of the property would in fact stay the same.  He added that the road had not been damaged by 26 tonnes refuse vehicles and accordingly he felt it would therefore be fine.  He asked that the Committee agree with their Officer’s recommendation and approve the application.

 

The Chair thanked Mr G Thompson and asked the Planning Officer, JJ to comment on the points raised by the speakers.

 

The Planning Officer, JJ noted that a full assessment had been made in terms of the scale and massing of the proposals.  She added that from the front elevation the property would continue to appear as a two-storey dwelling, and the 500mm ridge height increase was not felt to have an impact upon the character of the estate.  She added the property was relatively secluded with six other properties in the area.  In respect of the velux windows, she reiterated that these did not form part of the application, being allowed under permitted development, as are many of these types of windows, common in loft conversions. 

She noted that as the velux windows lined up with the existing front elevation windows, the same window to blank gable relationship existed and there were no concerns in respect of overlooking No.20.

 

The Planning Officer, JJ noted that in terms of visibility, most of the proposed additions were at the rear of the property, with No.17 being the main property in that direction.  She added that No.17 was around 25 metres away and in terms of the context of the relationship between the neighbouring property and the existing gable end it was not felt that this was a reason for refusal of the application.

 

Councillor I Cochrane left the meeting at 2.33pm

 

The Planning Officer, JJ reiterated that in terms of HMO use, such use would require a further application.

 

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, JJ and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted he understood the fears of the property potentially become an HMO, however, the Officer had explained this would require a further application and the applicant had attended Committee and stated his case, adding he felt most trying to secure an HMO without permission would not likely to have come to address the Committee.  Councillor J Shuttleworth moved that the application be approved as per the Officer’s report.

 

Councillor B Coult asked if the floorplan could be displayed on the projector screens and asked for clarification as regards the purple lines on the plan, whether they represented walls or otherwise.  The Planning Officer, JJ noted they represented steelwork to support an open plan arrangement.

 

Councillor M Davinson seconded Councillor J Shuttleworth.

 

RESOLVED

 

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

 

 

Councillor I Cochrane entered the meeting at 2.36pm