Agenda item

Minutes:

Members considered application number 140254, an application for the erection of two storey and single storey extensions to the rear, including the removal of existing two storey elements, a resubmission of 139326 at The Poplars, 22 Main Street, Normanby by Spital, Market Rasen LN8 2HE.

 

There were no further officer updates to the printed report.

 

The first speaker on this application was Abigail Redmile, the applicant.  She raised the following points:

 

·         Plans have been extensively revised to address al legitimate planning concerns; planning officers feel that this adequately addressed the matter;

·         Neighbours have continuously objected to this application with concerns with dominance, light and privacy;

·         ‘Sun studies’ had been carried out to make sure that there was no additional shadowing compared to the existing structure.  The results were produced using industry standard software;

·         The 2.8 metre boundary wall along the rear northern boundary would have a far greater impact on light with the addition of a 45 degree angle of light passage;

·         Both neighbours’ concerns on privacy were not valid; the northern boundary windows were obscure and offered no view of Number 24.  The existing first floor overlooking window of the southern elevation offered no view of Number 20’s garden area.  All that was visible from this window was a parking area and boundary;

·         The current application accorded with all planning policies, and there was no planning reason for rejection of the application.

 

There were two objectors to the application, Julia Watson and Jane Sharman who shared the allotted time for speaking.  The following points were raised:

 

·         One of the ladies’ residences was bought for its quiet location and large private garden;

·         There were three main concerns; the proposed size of the extension and lack of privacy, the height and size of the proposed structure, and extra soil flow through an old ‘piggyback’ system in the rear garden;

·         WLDC had set a precedent when granting permission for a property directly behind one of the neighbours which included the condition related to obscured windows;

·         WLDC rejected the first proposal on this site which proposed building on three levels; this new proposal had not reduced the height or size of the structure in any significant way.  It was believed that the applicant’s requirements could be met with smaller dimensions;

·         By reducing the angle of the roofs and incorporating a different style of roof on the extension the building could be considered less imposing;

·         Proposed bedrooms 2 and 3 had two windows each; these were on ‘bright light aspects’ and could be adequately serviced by one window each.  The south facing window was not required;

·         Artist impressions were misleading as it showed the plot surrounded by trees;

·         A site visit would be appreciated to highlight the above concerns;

·         The incorrect officer plans show that the proposed two storey extension would extend back by more than 2 metres as opposed to the 1.2 metres stated in the planning report;

·         The officer’s report was again incorrect when it came to the height of the proposal; the roofs would be 3.9 metres, and increase of 0.7 metres on the existing roof, not the 0.4 metres as stated in the report;

·         The two storey section of the proposal was 2.4 metres from the one of the neighbour’s properties; this was too close.  Currently the distance of the existing property from the neighbour was staggered; at its nearest point the distance between the two was 3.8 metres.  The first floor bedroom wall was acceptable, but the first floor bathroom wall should come no closer than the existing boundary;

·         The conclusions of the officer report did not address the loss of light to a courtyard and habitable rooms, as required by LP26 of the CLLP.  The sun would be completely blocked by the proposed development at different times of the day;

·         There would be significant loss of privacy and enjoyment of the section of the garden that is not currently overlooked.  Two new large windows directly overlooking the courtyard, even if frosted would lead to a loss of privacy.  A restriction in size to the windows, as well as them being frosted would be preferable;

·         The pitch of the roofs should be 20 degrees rather than 40 degrees, along with a hipped roofline on the two storey extension parts;

·         The committee cannot validly approve the proposal due to:

o   the errors in the officer report;

o   errors in the comparators in the architect’s drawings were in the applicant’s favour;

o   the conclusions in the report did not satisfy the objectors’ concerns over loss of light;

o   in the objectors’ view the report did not give weight to the loss of privacy at number 20;

·         A condition should be added for reasonable working hours;

·         An approval for a house of this size would set a dangerous precedent for other developments in this area.

 

The final speaker was Councillor Jeff Summers, Ward Member for Waddingham and Spital.  He raised the following points:

 

·         There appeared to be discrepancies in the officer report, and it was unclear why this had reached the Planning Committee stage;

·         This new proposal was closer to the Post Office and Bed and Breakfast than previously.  A greater level of shading would occur; an increased roof height would cast a long shadow;

·         The pitch of the roof could be reduced further and still be within building regulations;

·         The increased number of windows overlooking Homestead Farm was not acceptable.  Removing the bedroom on the southern side of the proposed site would reduce the overlooking greatly;

·         Bedroom 4 in the proposal had two windows; this could be reduced to one;

·         Replacing the gable ends of the extension would reduce the impact on the Post Office;

·         The roof line was too high and created a shading increase;

·         The roof line of both apexes was too high; by reducing the height this would allow more light into the neighbour’s patio area.  The roof height could be reduced by up to one metre;

·         Bedroom 2 did not need two windows; by removing the south window overlooking of Homestead Farm would be eliminated;

·          The footprint of the site could be sensitively reduced.

 

Note:   Following his contribution, Councillor Summers left the Chamber.

 

The Planning Manager (Development Management) then responded to some of the points made during the public speaking section of the item:

 

·         The greatest length of the existing rear extensions currently stood at 5.8 metres, not 6.5 metres as reported; the proposal would bring this to 7.7 metres taking into account the extension – approximately a 2 metre extension;

·         The height of the proposal would be 7.4 metres at its highest ridge, not 7.1 metres as reported, an increase of 30 centimetres;

·         The applicant had put forward sun and daylight diagrams as requested by planning officers, and these offered comparators between the current building and the proposal.  The previous application had been refused on the grounds of neighbouring impact; the proposal had now addressed these concerns in the opinion of planning officers;

·         The plans were in order for the committee to determine the application, subject to the measurement clarifications given on the existing elevations.

 

Members passed comment on the height of the proposal, and the difference of opinion between the applicant and the objectors.  The officer recommendation was moved and seconded, and following the vote, the applicant was GRANTED with the following conditions:

 

Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the development:

2. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: 12-412-02 C, 12-412-03 D received 8 January 2020. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

3. The materials used in the development shall match those stated on the application form.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan. 

 

Conditions to be observed following the completion of the development: 

4. The first floor windows on the north elevation that serve the ‘bathroom’ and ‘en-suite’ shall be obscure glazed and retained thereafter. 

Reason: To protect the neighbour’s amenity from undue loss of privacy from overlooking in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B,C, of Schedule 2 Part 1, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order), there shall be no external alterations to the dwelling including the insertion of new windows, or dormer windows or extensions other than authorised by this permission. 

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the building and the local area and to avoid adverse impacts on adjoining residential amenities through loss of privacy, overlooking and over dominance in accordance with Policy LP17 and Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

Supporting documents: