Agenda item

Two storey side extension.

Public Participation

MarziaParodi spoke in objection to the application

James Murphy spoke in objection to the application

Mrs Reed (applicant) spoke in support of the application

John Barber spoke on behalf of Salisbury City Council

 

The Planning Officer James Repper, presented the application which was for a two-storey side extension. The application was recommended for approval with conditions, as set out in the report. He showed a variety of slides, and highlighted the following points:

 

• The proposal included the removal of a side window and move that to the rear of the extension.

 

• The objections received included a claim of reduction in sunlight to the neighbouring property and as a result an adverse effect on it.

 

• There were other similar extensions on neighbouring properties. The extension would facilitate a bedroom and en-suite

 

• There was currently a boundary dispute, Surveyors were involved and reports had been produced to state who owned the boundary.

 

• Property number 14 had an extension of a similar in size, with the proposed being slightly narrower.

 

The Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that it was not possible to show where the shadow of the proposed extension would fall in the neighbouring rear garden, as it would be dependent on several factors which were changeable with time of day, and whether it was summer or winter. However, slides were shown of existing overshadowing caused by the existing dwelling.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above. The main points included:

 

• that the neighbouring property number 14 already had the extension up to the boundary when that house was purchased. If number 12 had a similar extension, there would not be enough of a gap between the two and as such would not be enough to distinguish the two properties as semidetached.

 

• The properties were set out in a staggered style and sat at different heights, with number 12 higher than number 14. An extension of this size would subject the rear garden of number 14 to additional shadow.

 

• New developments should provide a high standard of amenity. The neighbours property sat higher and further back from number 14, and it was felt that those factors had not been taken in to consideration.

 

• The applicants had lived in the property for a number of years and had a detailed knowledge of the area.

 

• There were other extensions of varying sizes and styles in the area, and the design had followed planning criteria closely. The proposed extension at 2.5m wide, was smaller than others nearby and that of the next-door neighbour at number 14.

 

• The property was in the corner of a cul-de-sac only used by residents and those turning. The existing adequate parking of 2 spaces would remain.

 

Salisbury City Council (SCC) representative, John Barber spoke in objection to the application, noting that SCC had refused the application on grounds of scale and overdevelopment, and indicated the following:

 

• The proposal was up against a building line so it had been rejected. It was felt that the proposal would change the character of number 14 and would create a considerable shadow at the rear of the neighbouring property.

 

• There would be no access for the neighbour to access their guttering between the two extensions, and would produce the visual effect of a terrace.

 

• The development would change the parking, as they propose to park a car on the front garden. The existing front porch was constructed from the wrong material, SCC would not have approved that either.

 

• SCC felt that the proposal was not complimentary to the local community.

 

The Division Member Cllr Derek Brown was unable to attend the meeting. 

 

Cllr Hewitt then moved the motion of Approval in line with Officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr McLennan.

 

A debate followed where the key points raised included that:

 

• loss of sunlight did not constitute a planning refusal. There was nothing to say that as one neighbour had their extension first, that meant the other neighbour could not have one, because the two would be next to each other.

 

• The height could be considered over bearing and because of the layout of the staggered houses, there would be some over shadowing.

 

• Both properties were orientated east west, so light would be restricted by the houses themselves.

 

• The proposal would have an effect on the street scene and create the appearance of a terrace.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of Approval.

 

 

Resolved:

That application 19/00389/FUL be Approved in line with Officer recommendation with the following conditions:

 

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

 

REASON:  To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

 

Application Form & Certificate Received 20^th January 2019

          Revised Proposed Elevations Rev A Received 20^th March2019

Revised Proposed Floorplans Rev A Received 21^th March 2019

Location & Block Plans Received 20^th January 2019

Revised Proposed Parking Plan Rev A Received 20^th March 2019

         

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper  Planning.

 

3.       The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match in material, colour and texture those used in the existing building.

 

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

 

4.       WE12 OBSCURE GLAZING

 

Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use the window in the Western elevation (serving the En-Suite) shall be glazed with obscure glass and be top opening only. The window shall be maintained as such in perpetuity.

 

REASON:  In the interests of residential amenity and privacy.