Agenda item

Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of approval reference DM/22/02767/FPA to add north facing window in side wall of rear extension, east facing window in side utility extension and remove north facing side window in snug area.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the above mentioned 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 some Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of approval reference DM/22/02767/FPA to add a north facing window in the side wall of the rear extension, east facing window in the side utility extension and remove north facing side window in snug area and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Principal Planning Officer highlighted that the matter before Members was solely the variation of condition application, and not the other works which had already been previously agreed.  He noted the City of Durham Parish Council had highlighted the concerns raised by residents and had suggested obscure glazing as a possible solution.  He added there had been objection from a neighbour who noted several reasons including a severe impact upon residential amenity, privacy and failure to meet minimum separation distances.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the comments from objectors had been taken into account, however, Officers felt that the application represented a minor impact to an existing scheme and would have a neutral impact upon the Conservation Area.  He concluded by noting the application was in accord with the relevant policies and was recommended for approval.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Prof Neil Walton, local resident who had objected, to speak in relation to the application, noting he had some slides to accompany his presentation.

Prof N Walton explained he was the resident of 15 Ferens Park and was objecting to the north facing window. 

He referred Members to a photograph of 12 Ferens Park, as part of his presentation slides, and explained that the window was well within the 21-metre minimum separation distance required and had significant views over the rear of his property.  He added that windows on side elevations were not a requirement and that guidance stated that, if they were to be included, they should use obscure glazing.  Prof N Walton noted that the Officer had agreed that the application was not compliant in this regard.  He explained that he disagreed with the view of the Officer and felt that the window represented severe harm and that the mitigation proposed would not work due to the height and angle.  He noted that he felt the window was not essential, however, if it was determined to be essential it should be obscure glazing and remain so in future. 

Prof N Walton asked why planning policy had not been followed, noting two previous applications that had been incorrect and that the amended scheme had a new window 0.5 metres closer to his property, now in a large kitchen/living area.  He reiterated that the amended scheme introduced a larger non-compliant window, closer in context of his living room and was not obscured glazing.  He noted the mitigation proposed was the fence, however, the position was highly elevated, with the window at their ground floor being at his properties first floor level.  He added that the window would have views on to all eight windows of his property, not just the kitchen, including his bathroom.  He concluded by noting that all of his bedrooms were within 21 metres and therefore the proposed window should be removed, or a condition placed to require obscure glazing in perpetuity.

The Chair thanked Prof N Walton and asked Dr Peter Newman, the applicant, to speak in support of his application.

Dr P Newman noted that there had in fact been a window in the location proposed for around 20 years, and when constructed at the time permission had been granted.  He noted the window was very important and its use, in addition to light, was to be able to view down on to the grassed area within his own garden to be able to check on his three children playing.  Without the window, he would not be able to view on to his garden.  He explained there had been a number of serious concessions made following complaints from neighbours in terms of the number of windows and views on to ‘primary habitat’, with a balance being for some windows to have obscured glazing.

Dr P Newman noted that guidance as regards a 21-metre separation distance was not rigid in its application, adding there was no direct line of sight when the mitigating fence was installed.  He noted that there were three windows within the distance, not 10.  He added there would be no impact upon privacy, below the 1.8 height and being a reduced size, width when compared to the window that had been in place for the previous 20 years.

Dr P Newman noted other concessions included the removal of a side door, bay window and raising of the fence by two metres with the introduction of foliage.  He asked therefore if the new window impacted more than the existing window, noting that it would not be visible to the lower floor of the neighbouring property and that the angle of the window to the neighbouring property also had to be taken into account.  Dr P Newman noted he did not wish for more upheaval for his family, especially the impact on his children not being able to live in the property while works were ongoing.

The Chair thanked Dr P Newman and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor P Jopling noted she had attended the site visit and asked the Principal Planning Officer to stand at the proposed window inside the extension in order to be able to appreciate the line of sight from the position and the internal floor levels.  She noted that to be able to see into the neighbouring property, one would need to be seven feet tall, adding it would be very difficult to see into the ground floor of the neighbouring property.  She noted that the screening proposed would be ample and she could not see an issue with the window and mitigation as proposed, the applicant having done as much as possible in that regard.  Accordingly, she moved that the application be approved as per the Officer’s recommendation.  Councillor E Peeke seconded the motion for approval and upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

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