Minutes:
The application before Members sought planning permission to retain the single storey rear extension which measuredapproximately five metres deep, 6.4 metres wide with a height of approximately 3.8 metres adjacent to the dwellingwith this increasing to approximately 4.05 metres adjacent to the garden due to the substantial drop inground level. The proposal outlined that steps would be provided from the extension into the rear garden.
The report detailed that the proposed single storey side extension could be completed under permitted development and would measure approximately 2.12 metres wide, 4.2 metres deep and 2.55 metres in height but the applicant had decided to show this element within the proposal due to the amount of interest in the application.
One late letter of representation from a local resident objecting to the proposal was received.
Members noted that the application had been called in byCouncillor Jody Ganly on the grounds that the height of the proposed roof blocked out natural light to the neighbouring property and the proposal did not adhere to the original plans.
In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant.
The objector raised concerns over the conduct of the applicant stating that the development that had been built was not that which had been shown on the approved plans of the original planning permission. The objector stated that the height of the extension blocked light from the dining room of the neighbouring property. In relation to working hours the objector commented that work had been carried out on the loft extension at 5am.
In response the applicant commented that during inspection, the building inspector had requested a different roof design on the extension. The applicant commented that the objections were more of a neighbour dispute than planning issues.
With its agreement Councillor Jody Ganly addressed the Committee. Councillor Ganly commented that the development had been built in breach of planning regulations. Councillor Ganly stated that the roof had been erected higher than that approved and this had led to unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours. Councillor Ganly stated that the increased height had led to a loss of light in the neighbour’s dining room. Councillor Ganly commented that the applicant had breached policy DC61 and conditions 2 and 4 of the original planning permission. Councillor Ganly stated that objections to the original planning application had only been withdrawn when the scheme had been revised to take account of neighbours’ concerns. But the development was not carried out in accordance with the approved plans.
During the debate Members discussed the design and height of the roof and the hours of working at the site. Members raised concerns over the breach of planning control and the adverse impact of the development on the amenity of neighbours.
The report recommended that planning permission be granted, however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the design and bulk would harm the rear garden environment and amenity of the neighbouring properties.
The vote for the resolution to refuse planning permission was carried by 7 votes to 4.
Councillors Best, Philipa Crowder, John Crowder and Kelly voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission