Agenda item

To consider report PES/460dof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE.

The Committee considered report PES/460d of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Retrospective permission for creation of dormer on rear elevation.

Councillors Adeniyi, Burgess, Charatan, Jaggard, Mwagale, and Pritchard declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought planning permission for an extension to a residential property in the form of a second floor rear dormer.  The dormer had been constructed prior to submission of the application so the permission sought was retrospective.  The Officer then gave details of the various relevant planning considerations as set out in the report.

Sandra Smith, a neighbour of the site, spoke in objection to the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The constructed extension had had a significant impact on neighbouring amenity, mainly due to a loss of privacy for the immediate neighbours.  Although the houses were at right-angles so according to policy were not deemed to cause a significant loss of privacy, the height and size of the extension resulted in full visibility into the neighbour’s home and garden.

·       Neighbours could also see into some rooms in the extension itself.  Blinds had been installed and trees had been planted but the size of the extension made it difficult to hide.

·       Planning policy stated that there should be a good standard of amenity for other nearby neighbours, however the appearance of the extension was not sympathetic to the streetscene due to its style, size, and large windows.

Mohsin Uddin, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The extension had been built to accommodate a growing family.  A previous planning application for the property had been submitted and granted permission in 2017, which had included cladding on the front of the property.

·       The property was not in a conservation area and complied with all permitted development rules (including height and size) except for the materials which had been used.

·       The extension was not visible from the entrance to Woodlands.  The eaves of the extension were visible from further down the road, but not significantly.

Jack Townsend, the agent, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       If not for the materials used, the extension would have fallen under permitted development rights.  Grey cladding had been used rather than tile, but other properties on Woodlands and in the area had been constructed with similar cladding. Nearby properties also had similar dormers.

·       Two prior applications had been permitted for grey windows and grey slate tile roofing on the property in the past.

·       There was no impact on neighbouring amenity and the impact on the streetscene was minimal.

Councillor Justin Russell, Ward Councillor for Pound Hill North & Forge Wood, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The property, including its extension, was of a high quality design and had been well constructed. 

·       Whether the colour of the cladding was acceptable was arguably a subjective matter.  The grey colour complemented the design of the property as a whole.  Other properties in the area used similar cladding and this signified an organic change in residential building design over time.

·       The property sat at the top of a slight rise in ground level so any changes made were more prominent than they may be on other properties in the road, but the dormer was only visible from a small stretch of pavement.

Councillor Nick Hilton, Ward Councillor for Pound Hill North & Forge Wood, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The application had been brought to the Committee due to the materials used.  The entirety of the application was now to be considered.

·       Woodlands’ streetscene was mixed and some properties on the road and in the local area had dormers and grey cladding, some of which had been granted planning permission by the Committee in the past.

·       There was little impact on neighbouring amenity and it was not the case that the dormer was conspicuous and inappropriate, as the report stated.  The impact on the streetscene was minimal as the dormer was hardly visible from public areas.

The Committee then considered the application.  Committee members sought clarification of permitted development rights in order to better understand the reason for the application coming to the Committee for a decision.  The planning officer confirmed that this was solely due to the materials used.  If compliant materials had been used (it was a requirement of permitted development that materials must be of a similar appearance to the existing property), the extension would have been acceptable under permitted development, however both the grey colour and the faux timber finish of the dormer were deemed to not be similar to the existing tiled roof.  As the changes made were not permissible under permitted development a full planning application had instead been required, and so the Committee was to consider whether to grant permission for the dormer and in doing so consider every aspect of it; not just the materials used.  The officer’s recommendation was to refuse the application as the dormer as erected did not comply with policy.

It was requested that officers provide information on the consequences of refusing a retrospective planning application.  It was confirmed that this would involve either removal of the construction or adaptation to bring it in line with policy.  This was not however a consideration for the Committee as it was subject to a different process.

The Committee discussed the size of the dormer and its visibility from the public highway.  Several Committee members commented that the dormer was large, bulky, or overly dominant and there were concerns that it made for a significant change to the property which negatively affected the streetscene and the neighbours’ view to the rear.  Others considered the dormer to not be especially visible from the public highway and thus to have minimal impact on the streetscene.  The planning officer advised that the acceptability of an extension’s impact on the streetscene was relative to its context, and in this context there was a significant visual impact from public viewpoints.

Committee members also discussed the materials used for the dormer, about which mixed opinions were expressed.  Some felt that the materials complemented the existing property and did not look out of place, partly due to the use of similar grey colours on neighbouring houses.  Others felt that the materials did not match the rest of the property and there were no dormers in the area with cladding that were both grey in colour and had a faux timber effect.  It was highlighted that it was typical for a usual (non-retrospective) planning application to have a condition attached that required the materials used to be similar to those of the existing building.  Following mixed comments about the attractiveness of the extension and the subjectivity of this, the Committee was reminded that there was clear policy and guidance in regard to design and that the assessment was therefore not subjective.  Materials were required to be matching or otherwise appropriate to the character of the property and streetscene.

A concern was raised about the impact of the extension on the privacy of neighbours of the house.  It was confirmed that there was a distance of approximately 30 metres to the neighbouring property – there was some overlooking of the rear garden, which was not an abnormal relationship, but it was up to the Committee to decide whether any overlooking into the neighbouring house had a significant negative impact on neighbouring amenity.

A Committee member raised concerns as to whether the local planning authority had sufficiently provided the applicant with guidelines about the size and materials to be used.  The planning officer confirmed that planning legislation set out the limitations of such a development and it was the applicant’s responsibility to ensure these were complied with.

The Committee then moved to a vote on the recommendation set out in the report.  The recommendation was moved by Councillor Pritchard as the Chair and seconded by Councillor Mwagale as the Vice-Chair. 

RESOLVED

Refuse for to the reasons set out in report PES/460d.