Agenda item

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced planning application 140569 for replacement of a dormer bungalow with a two storey house. The Development Management Officer explained there had been two further comments received which raised concerns that the finished building would be directly overlooking neighbouring properties. She explained the reason behind the application being the recent flooding in Scotter and that the raised height of the building would allow for better protection in case of future flooding.

 

The Chairman stated there were two registered speakers on the application and invited the first speaker, Mrs Laura Calvert, Applicant, to address the Committee.

 

Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to address the Committee.

 

Last November our property suffered almost 1 metre floodwater, after already flooding badly 12 days prior. The third severe flood event, that we are aware of, in 12 years.

 

Therefore this application is born out of necessity to protect from future flood events. It would be retracted immediately should others be able to assure us that future flood events are preventable. Sadly flooding is a likely occurrence and this has been reiterated by the EA on many occasions, worsened by the low lying position of our home.

 

After much deliberating on design, projected build costings and rational planning we have concluded that our proposal is the only way to deal with the problem we face but to make it viable we need to enhance the original design by extending the footprint in such a way that it dovetails with the existing layout and is oriented to suit the plot and it’s features.

 

As we understand it, this application has failed because of our reluctance to remove the very extension that will enable this proposal to be viable.

 

We would like to challenge the planning teams statement that we have had the ‘opportunity to address concerns raised but have failed to do so due to our own private interests’. If this is implying financial gain to us, that is far from correct, we may break even if this application is successful, at the very best. The only ‘private interest’ we have is the safety and assurance for our three boys under the age of 7 years old who are still showing signs of distress following the flood, of which government guidance states should be considered in planning decisions. The planning team are failing to understand that the removal of the extension would be the end of the road for us. We are not a developer seeking to make profit, we are a young family who want to protect their home from flooding. We are not being unreasonable, purely realistic. Nobody can spend significant amounts of money to result in negative equity.

 

The reality is the proposed design lends itself to minimise costs by using as much of the existing footprint as possible, and the extension and extra bedroom recoups some of these substantial costs. An extension and extra bedroom has always been an option for our growing family.

 

In a bid to accommodate all concerns we have made many compromises;

·         relocation of the Garage to substantially improve the primary view from No.16

·         removal of overhanging eaves resulting in a reduction of the ridge height to within 450mm of the ridge height of No.16

·         removal of masonry parapet walls on the western boundary to reduce the bulk brickwork view from No.16

·         relocation of the rear Patio area away from the western boundary to reduce overlooking

·         replacement of front boundary parapet walls with open balustrading to reduce impact 

·         removal of the Utility access on the Western elevation to remove any form of intrusion or overlooking on No.16.

 

Furthermore, the planning team had previously asked us to consider indenting the extension to step the West wall. After consideration, we agreed to this, losing 1 metre on both floors. However we were then told that this would make no difference to their recommendation.

 

Even after all these design changes in a bid to compromise the effect on the adjacent property, it appears that the height and length of the West facing wall is still a point of contention. The height is dictated by the EA requirements and the length is required to accommodate the extension that is essential to enable viability.

 

Our view is that any reduction in amenity to the adjacent property is minimal and had it not been for the necessity to raise the building by 1.75m our proposal would not have raised any sustainable objections.

 

It should not be forgotten that the obstruction to the view line from the center of the gable to No. 16 is 16 metres away and that the primary view to No.16 has much improved, and it is the secondary view from only the side garden and property which is the concern.

 

The view to the South from No.16 currently overlooks our back garden which is mitigated, to some extent, by our proposed extension. Likewise this would make number 16s garden more private. Due to our proposal No.16 will have a reduced overlooking view of the river Eau at the end of our land which would be mitigated substantially at the front by the relocation of the Garage, overall improving No 16’s river view.

 

We really need to emphasize the point to the committee that there is a significant distance between ourselves and the neighbouring property. We are fortunate to have a plot that can easily facilitate this proposal. The fact of the matter is, no planning application for extensions would ever be approved on the grounds that the planning officer is recommending refusal for on this application. We find this really disappointing due to the circumstances and reasons behind this application. 

 

I think it is very important, and relevant, that the committee should be made aware that the owner of No.16 built our existing property and raised his family there. It is our opinion that any proposed design to replace our house would be met with strong objections.

 

It is now 6 months since the flooding, and we, and our home, remains devastated following the effects and our lives have been put on hold throughout this long process. 

 

We hope that the Committee can support what we are trying to do here so that we can finally get on with creating a secure dwelling and home for our young family out of a flawed, at risk building that will always suffer from the likelihood of flooding.

 

Thank you.

 

The Chairman invited the second speaker, Councillor L. Rollings, Ward Member, to address the Committee.

 

I wanted to speak in support of the planning application submitted by Mr and Mrs Calvert in order to add some additional context which I hope will be useful.

 

Immediately before the Coronovirus outbreak and subsequent crisis, the Lindholme and Riverside area of Scotter had been hit by a series of flooding incidents that have left the residents in a very difficult situation.

 

These residents were flooded in 2007 and indeed the Calverts were flooded 2 weeks before the November flood, as their property is actually the lowest on their road.

 

When the waters rose very suddenly, they had to be rescued by the fire service in a boat at 1am.  Their children are still very frightened. They can’t afford to be flooded again.

 

In the run up to the November floods, there were several near misses, with the water levels on the River Eau coming with inches of going over the top of the bank.

 

Given the government’s policy of allowing rivers to naturalise, in the short term it is hard to see the situation on the River Eau being rectified.

 

The residents are in the situation now where they are repairing their homes when in actual fact, at any time there could be a repeat of the November floods, putting them back to square one.

 

Properties are becoming increasingly difficult to insure and their value dropping.

 

For the Calverts with their young family, the only solution is to raise the height of their house allowing flood water to go under it without damaging it, in a flood situation.

 

The problem with this is that it is very expensive.

 

The only way they can ever borrow enough money as a mortgage is if the value of the property goes up.  The only way it goes up is if they can include an additional bedroom and downstairs room as part of their re-design.

 

The re-designed property sits on the same footprint but is taller, but for anyone who knows Lindholme, they will know that the properties on the opposite side of the river are much higher, so these proposed changes do not adversely impact on the surrounding properties at all. Indeed, there have been no objections from anyone else on the road apart from one neighbour.

 

So, in summary I have 3 main points.

 

1      Mr and Mrs Calvert are not trying to make a profit, merely to create a property that allows them to get a mortgage for what they’ve had to spend on it to make it flood proof.

 

2     The issue with the expanse of wall and distance from the neighbouring property, I don’t feel is acceptable.

 

The view from the neighbouring property is actually improved from the front, the view from the rear is unchanged – it is only from the side that there is some minimal  impact and speaking of consistency in planning, there are literally hundreds of properties that we have given planning permission to that are built closer and with bigger expanses of wall, literally obliterating peoples views. We are regularly told, no one is entitled to a view.

 

3     As a district council, we have to accept that if property owners are going to be allowed to flood - proof their properties, there will be some visual change to the built environment - change that may not fit in with the current constraints interpreted by our planning department. We may have to be more flexible.

 

Given these exceptional circumstances I would urge the committee to accept this application.

 

With no further comment from the Development Management Officer, the Chairman invited comments from Members of the Committee.

 

There was significant discussion regarding the benefits of undertaking the rebuild of the flooded property in a manner that would protect it in future, against the potential impact on the area and neighbouring properties. There was some support for the application and a Member of Committee commented that as the building existed already, rather than being an application for a new development, there should be fewer objections to the proposal, however the size difference between existing property and proposed dwelling were highlighted using the plans and Officer’s report. The Interim Planning Manager highlighted that the focus of decision making needed to be the material considerations and there were significant concerns about the impact of the proposed extension on the neighbouring property. He added that the principle of the application was supported however the impact of the extension was too great.

 

A Member of Committee proposed a site visit may assist Members understand the concerns however this was not seconded nor taken to a vote. It was commented that in relation to neighbouring properties being overlooked, the distance between properties was not the impact, rather it would be the mass of the building that would be detrimental.

 

With no further comments from Members, and with the Officer recommendation having been proposed and seconded, the Chairman undertook the Member vote. With the majority vote it was agreed that planning permission be REFUSED.

Supporting documents: