Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall made the point that there are no neighbouring objections to the proposal or any objections from the consultees. He feels the key point with the application is the neighbouring property, number 19, which is to the west of this site and when he visited the site he reviewed the street scene in this area of The Stitch and showed a photo on the presentation screen that he had took of the bungalow immediately adjacent to the proposal site and to the left-hand side of this bungalow there is already a two-storey property constructed in 2005, which is approximately a metre from the boundary, set well forward of the adjacent bungalow and is similar to what is being proposed with this application.

Mr Hall expressed the view that on the opposite side of The Stitch, properties 68 and 72, which are further to the east, have a very similar situation where there is a bungalow set well back from the street scene and a two-storey property set well forward. He referred to the officer’s report making reference to this property being set forward but, in his view, there are numerous other properties along this side of The Stitch that are set forward and more forward than this dwelling, which can be seen on Google Maps and also on Ordnance Survey.

Mr Hall stated that on the actual street scene he has submitted it does show a 1.8 metre high fence along that boundary so he has shown a boundary treatment but he would be happy to accept a condition here. He expressed the opinion that the proposal still has over a third garden area, parking on site for 3 vehicles, materials matching in with the existing property and there are no doors and windows on this side elevation against the neighbouring building and this proposal is no higher than the existing property with this application receiving no objections.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Marks stated that there are no windows or anything on the property itself but asked what about the bungalow? Mr Hall responded that the bungalow’s principal elevations are front and rear but he believes there is an opening on the right hand side of the bungalow which faces the proposal site but the bungalow is set back.

·       Councillor Murphy asked why the photo shows this side of the bungalow when there is more room as the house here is at an angle away from the bungalow but the side where this proposal is going is right up close to the bungalow and the photo should have been taken the other side. Mr Hall responded that the property on the photograph is parallel with the bungalow and he is trying to show what is on the opposite side and he is trying to match in with it to show that there is a two-storey property against a bungalow. He stated that there is 1.2 metres from the bungalow to the fence on the opposite site and on the proposal side there is fractionally less than a metre from the bungalow to the proposed fence.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis made the point that the gap between the photo of the house that Mr Hall has taken to the bungalow is bigger than the one on the other side and in the report it says a fence is to be built as the hedge has to be taken down to accommodate the build and the fence to be replaced will be right up against the edge of the bungalow. Mr Hall reiterated there is a 1.2 metres on the side of the bungalow to the fence on the opposite side and slightly less than a metre once the hedge is taken down and replaced with a fence, so the proposal side is probably about a foot closer.

·       Councillor Murphy queried why a photo was being shown of a property on the other side of the bungalow and not showing the proposal site against the bungalow.

·       Councillor Sutton remarked that there seems to be confusion on the distance between number 19 which is on the left-hand side and is 1200 to the boundary fence and on the right-hand side is a metre to the boundary fence. He feels what Councillor Murphy is referring to is number 17 and the distance from the end of No.17 to their boundary fence. Mr Hall asked for the photo to be displayed again and explained the photo shows No.17, which is not the site that is proposed to be extende, and he has tried to show that there is already a two story building approved in close proximity and stepped forward.

·       Councillor Murphy made the point that when members walked along the road from the right hand side of the photo to the bungalow’s gate a lady came out of the bungalow and members were shown a house on the right had side which is going to have the extension on it and the house in the photo has nothing to do with the application. Councillor Sutton stated that Mr Hall is trying to show that one side is built out the same as he is proposing. Councillor Murphy disagreed that the other side is built out, it is not going to be built out the same as the property shown on the photo.

·       Councillor Miscandlon expressed the view that the confusion arises from the Ordnance Survey map because it shows No.17 set well in front of No.19 which looking at the photo it is not and it is No.21 that is going to have the extension.

·       Councillor Cornwell agreed with the comments of Councillor Miscandlon as the Ordnance Survey clearly shows that No.19 is behind No.17, however, the site for this application is No.21 which is forward of No.19 and No.23 and he thinks the agent is trying to say that the gap between the property is OK but he feels the closer you are to a boundary the more problems it causes. He feels on the face of it it does look very close.

·       Councillor Sutton asked who actually owns the hedge? Mr Hall responded that the applicant does own the hedge.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that in the report the neighbour is happy for the hedge to be taken down and a fence put up in its place and has no objections to the build. Mr Hall confirmed this to be correct and that the neighbour has e-mailed and it is on public access but has asked for a fence to be put back up, which is being proposed.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that there is not any neighbour complaints and the neighbour at No.19 has asked for a fence and it should be insisted upon a reasonable sized fence. He understands what the officers are saying about the 45 degree viewpoint but out of the window to the right of the bungalow if you looked out of it now you would not see any further than you do when the extension is there as the hedge is already 2½ metres at least. Councillor Sutton referred to street scene and his own personal view is that the proposal improves the street scene as it makes the house symmetric and the proposed extension does not come any further forward than the right hand wing of the dwelling. He has no problem with the proposal as particularly on that side of the road there is not any development line and there is no neighbour objection.

·       Nick Harding made the point that as presented by the officer the proposal will be bringing the side elevation of the property much closer to the boundary so it is going to be much more obvious to the adjacent occupiers of the bungalow in terms of their outlook and quality of outlook as it is going to be a significant blank elevation which would be detrimental to their amenity.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation, with authority being given to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that due to the height of the hedge already in situ the extension will not be demonstrably harmful from the current situation and the proposal will improve the street scene by making the property symmetrical.

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows the agent for this application and he has undertaken work for him but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Murphy declared that he knows the agent for this application but he is not pre-determined and would approach the application with an open mind)