Agenda item

Two storey rear extension with Juliet style balcony, pitched roof dormer to rear, front porch extension, conversion of garage into storage, external alterations to appearance and installation of solar PV panels to front facing elevation.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper 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 two storey rear extension with Juliet style balcony, pitched roof dormer to rear, front porch extension, conversion of garage into storage, external alterations to appearance and installation of solar PV panels to front facing elevation and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.  The Principal Planning Officer noted a typographical error within the report, noting that the final paragraph 62 should include the word not so it would read ‘As mentioned previously, the dormer window is also considered not to be permitted development’.  He explained that such permitted development rights were withdrawn within conservation areas, and this was the case in this instance, therefore requiring planning permission.  He noted an update to conditions in terms of a matching brick finish rather than render.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Ann Callaghan, representing Shincliffe Parish Council, to speak in relation to the application.

Parish Councillor A Callaghan thanked the Chair and Committee and explained that while Shincliffe Parish Council reviewed all the planning applications within its area, it only rarely put forward any objections to an application, rather more usually recognising and supporting residents who wished to make improvements to their properties.  She noted however, where it was felt there would be an impact upon the conservation area, green belt or residential amenity then the Parish Council would make representations, as in this case.  She set out that the two main issues were the development within the conservation area, adding St. Mary’s Close an award winning development designed by renowned Architect Donald Insall, and the loss of amenity for neighbours.

Parish Councillor A Callaghan noted that the properties at St. Mary’s Close were one of only 11 Civic Trust award areas in County Durham and was the only housing development within those 11.  She noted it had been recognised for its openness and low density design, with rectilinear design and leading up to St. Mary’s Church.  She explained that the proposals within the application did not take those factors into account and noted the applicant had questioned the status of the conservation area. 

Parish Councillor A Callaghan noted the status was incontrovertible, noting its boundary flowing along the line of homes and to the boundary of the village and A177.  She noted that the proposals would break the roof line of the houses in St. Mary’s Close and therefore impact upon the visual amenity of the conservation area and also would not be in keeping with the established rectilinear style and noted other dormer window applications that had been rejected in the area.

Parish Councillor A Callaghan noted that policy relating to extensions was such that they should not impact upon the amenity of neighbouring occupants.  She noted the scale of the proposals were disproportionate, representing a 44 percent in increase in footprint, where 33 percent was deemed as an acceptable increase.  She added that none of the extensions within St. Mary’s Close were beyond 3.0 metres, with the proposals being for 4.5 metres.  In terms of the brick finish rather than render, she noted this was an improvement.

Parish Councillor A Callaghan noted the Parish Council felt the application was in conflict with CDP Policy 29 and the Residential Amenity Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as the proposed extension was not sympathetic with the existing buildings and conservation area as a result of the roof design, material, scale and size.  She added this also meant the proposals were in conflict with CDP Policy 6.  She noted that the recently updated Residential Amenity Standards SPD required that extensions were sympathetic and subordinate to the main dwelling.  She added the proposals were not in accord with NPPF Part 12 in terms of sustainability and conserving of the character of the conservation area.  She noted previously Planning Officers had ensured scale and proportion, citing examples at numbers 10 and 28 St. Mary’s Close.

In reference to loss of amenity for neighbouring residents, Parish Councillor A Callaghan noted the proposals would be overpower and dominate neighbouring properties and shade the garden of neighbours, impacting upon their residential amenity.  She added the proposed Juliet balcony and window would look directly into 5 St. Mary’s Close, a considerable loss of privacy.  She added that two of the three proposed windows were unobscured glass and gave views into 3 St. Mary’s Close, in conflict with national and Council guidelines referring to 21 metres between windows of habitable rooms.  She added that should Members be minded to approve the application, she felt that obscured glazing should be used in all windows.

Parish Councillor A Callaghan noted that the application was in conflict with CDP Policy 31 in terms of the proposals representing a visual dominance and loss of light that would not be mitigated and therefore should not be permitted.  She reiterated that the proposals were also in conflict with CDP Policies 6 and 29, as well as NPPF Part 12.

She reiterated that Shincliffe Parish Council supported development to properties in the Parish, however, they must abide by the appropriate policies in place.  She noted the Parish Council would work be happy to work with the applicant to help with proposals that would meet their needs.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor A Callaghan and asked Christine Warburton, local resident, to address the Committee.

C Warburton thanked the Chair and Committee and explained she was putting forward the views on behalf of herself, resident of 3 St. Mary’s Close, and of the resident of 5 St. Mary’s Close, Anne Stark.

She noted the proposals were not consistent with other granted permissions for extensions, such as that approved in 2021 for an extension at 28 St. Mary’s Close.  She noted that extension had been developed with a sympathetic design, however, the proposals for 4 St. Mary’s Close and Officer’s report either rejected or ignored the concerns of residents.  C Warburton noted the scale of the proposals, being 3.5 metres in size, with a maximum height of 6.5 metres and explained this represented over 40 percent increase in comparison to the host building.  She added this would present a visually dominant addition to the area and due to its orientation, would block garden sun to neighbouring properties.

C Warburton explained that there would be loss of privacy, given the floor to ceiling glazing, and with two obscure glazing windows to be replaced by a balcony window.  She noted paragraph 52 of the report stated ‘…sufficient areas of adjacent gardens would remain unaffected”, however, she noted it would result in a loss of privacy not only in the garden, but also in terms of her kitchen reiterated that the proposals would have an overbearing impact upon her and her neighbour’s property.  She noted the removal of a garage and siting of the extension closer to her property, adding the visual dominance could not be ignored.  She noted the applicant stared that the application was small, however, the proposals represented around 8 metres by 3.3 metres.

C Warburton noted that the application was not in accord with CDP Policies 6, 29 and 31 and Part 12 of the NPPF.  She added she felt Planners had not considered the designated status and added that other garages on the Close had not been developed in such a manner and other extensions had been developed in sympathy with the area.  She noted that she understood the desire to improve one’s property, however, any development must respect the design of the area and the residential amenity of neighbours.

The Chair thanked C Warburton and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor L Brown asked if the Design and Conservation Team were aware of the award status of St. Mary’s Close.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that there were, at very least through the representation made by those in objection.  Councillor L Brown asked if they had been aware at the time of their consultation response to the application.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that they were.

Councillor K Shaw noted the reference made by objectors to visual amenity and impact upon the conservation area and asked if there was a conservation area management plan in place.  The Principal Planning Officer noted he was not aware of such a plan.

Councillor J Elmer noted the change to brick rather than render, adding he felt that was a positive step.  He noted however, listening to the comments from the Parish Council and residents he felt split in terms of the application.  He noted it was important for the Committee to pay heed to those comments, though noted he felt that the proposals while not impacting the conservation area, did impact upon residential amenity.  He noted it was finely balanced, however, he felt support for those local residents.

Councillor A Bell noted the points raised by the Parish Council and asked for further comments from Officers on those issues.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the refusal of a dormer window referred to related to a property within the green belt, refused on that basis.  In terms of the size and being ‘disproportionate’, reference had been made to a desired extension size of 33 percent.  He noted that while some Local Authorities referred to such a percentage, it was not included within the CDP and each application would be judged on its own merits.  He noted that Design and Conservation had been happy the proposals represented a neutral impact and Planning Officers had attached weight to their response.

Councillor D Oliver noted he felt similarly torn, as Councillor J Elmer had noted.  He added that, while understanding the comments from the Parish Council and residents, he felt the comments from the Officers tipped the balance in his opinion.

Councillor L Brown asked as regards any construction management plan, noting he residential nature of the area.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that for residential extensions it was not normal practice to require a construction management plan, however, that would be for Members to decide, though he felt it would not pass the test in terms of the reasonableness of such a condition.  Councillor L Brown noted she would like to see one, given the residential nature of the area.

Councillor A Bell noted that from the responses from the Principal Planning Officer to queries and points raised, he felt that the application should be approved with a construction management plan as suggested.  Councillor L Brown noted she would propose an 8.00 am construction start time and usual conditions relating to Bank Holidays and weekends.  The Principal Planning Officer asked if Members were proposing extending the obscured glazing to the additional windows, it was noted they were.  Councillor D Oliver seconded the motion for approval put forward by Councillor A Bell.

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED as per the conditions set out within the report, amendment to obscure glazing and a construction management plan.

Councillors I Roberts and K Robson left the meeting at 11.33am