The Committee received and considered the Planning Officers report.
The Planning Officer reported that the application had been brought to the Development Control Committee due to the applicant being an employee of the Borough Council.
The Planning Officer reported that the application before Members sought approval of a side and rear extension, and conversion of the garage. The existing garage is proposed to be converted into a study, and the side extension effectively extends the garage forward to provide an additional store room and new porch access at the side of the house.
The site is within the development limits of Ormesby-St-Margaret and is a single storey bungalow which is typical of properties along Spruce Avenue which comprise a mixture of 2 storey houses and single storey bungalows.
The Planning Officer reported that one letter of concern had been received from a neighbour who had concerns on the grounds of the following :-
- Boundary issues and possible fence removal.
- The window on the front elevation of the proposed existing garage extension
looking into their property.
- The toilet – no window has been specified so far for the toilet therefore they assume any fumes would have to be extracted, and are concerned about the
placement of the extractor exit.
- Would this affect us at a later date if we wished to extend to the boundary on our side of the property?.
The Committee were informed that the Parish Council had since submitted comments on the application and these were as follows :-
- Concern of overlooking from rear windows
- loss of daylight
- loss of parking
The Planning Officer summarised the assessment of the application to the Committee, he advised that as the neighbour who had submitted comments identified, the extension continues to use the same building line as the external wall of the garage which acts as the boundary between no. 7 and 5 Spruce Avenue. This would require notification and potentially negotiation through the Party Wall Act but the loss or otherwise of a shared boundary fence is a civil matter and is not a material planning consideration. Any grant of planning permission woul d not give permission to carry out works on any land or property which is not in the ownership of the applicant.
It was reported that the amenities of neighbouring properties have been considered in the assessment of the application. The proposal does not seek any windows in the North-facing elevation or roofslope running along the boundary with the neighbour at 5 Spruce Avenue, and therefore is not assessed to create any significant detrimental impact from loss of privacy.
The Planning Officer reported in terms of amenity impacts there is not considered to be an unacceptable level of detrimental impact due to the single storey scale and the low-rise profile of the garage roof, and the limited area of the proposed extension which will increase the mass on the boundary to no. 5 to the North. It is not assessed to create any significantly detrimental impact on residential amenity due to a sense of overbearing development or overshadowing.
It was reported that in terms of the queries from the neighbour relating to an extractor fan and where this would extract fumes to. Given that there is not one marked on the plan and it is not assessed that this would create a significant detrimental impact upon the neighbours. However it shall be conditioned that the applicant shall route any extraction through the roof or out of another opening away from the neighbours side to prevent any unneighbourly impact.
It was advised that a planning condition shall be used to ensure that no additional windows or openings are added to the north-facing elevation along the common boundary in order to avoid precluding similar development in the future.
The Planning Officer reported that subject to the imposition of conditions as described, the proposal is considered acceptable as it accords with the policy criteria of HOU18 of the saved Borough Wide Local Plan and the criteria in the emerging Local Plan Part 2 Amenity Policy. The proposal would also not be contrary to CS9 in terms of design and was therefore recommended for approval.
Councillor Myers sought clarification on the wall between the two properties and the WC Extractor fan and raised some concern, although it was noted that this was not a matter that the application could be objected on the grounds of, however it was advised that this formed part of a condition within the recommendation that the Extraction to the WC or other rooms shall avoid the shared boundary wall / side elevation.
Councillor T Wright asked for clarification on the comments received from the Parish Council whether these had been an objection to the application or just comments, it was advised that no formal objection had been received only comments and concerns.
Following a vote it was :
That application 06/21/0627/F be approved subject to the following conditions :-
1. The development must be begun not later than three years from the date of this permission.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the application form and revised plans received by the LPA on the 8th September 2021.
3. The exterior materials to be used in the development shall match those of the existing dwelling.
4. No part of the development shall overhang the boundary.
5. Extraction to the WC or other rooms shall avoid the shared north boundary wall / side elevation.
6. Notwithstanding any relevant Permitted Development rights, there shall be no additional windows or openings added to the north elevation of the extension without the express written permission of the LPA.
And any other conditions considered appropriate by the Development