Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tania Hudson, an objector to the proposal. Ms Hudson stated that she lives at 63 Elwyn Road which is the property that is next door to the proposed garage, and she made reference to the presentation screen which details the concerns of both her and other neighbours who have also raised concerns over the proposal. She stated that some of the reasons which have been put forward in objection to the proposal are that the proposal is excessive and has only been reduced slightly in height, it distorts the spacious and traditional character of the street, and it has a negative impact on the street scene of Elwyn Road.

Ms Hudson added that further comments have been made stating that most properties on Elwyn Road either have low walls or shrubs and trees with no buildings close to the boundaries with the footpaths and highway, with the proposal setting a precedent for using house frontage for buildings. She stated that the neighbour opposite currently has a hedge in front, but this could be removed or reduced in height and then the garage would be in full sight and the neighbours opposite have also stated that the property benefitted from an integrated garage before and has already undergone a change of use to become part of the house and it did already have a double garage at the application site.

Ms Hudson added that Elwyn Road is a delightful street with older style properties with garages at the side and back of the properties and she made the point that to construct a garage of that size in the front garden would look inconsistent with the other surrounding properties. She expressed the view that when you look at the Ordnance Survey map it is demonstrated that all properties have their garages either at the side or the back of their dwellings as is hers and they are not as big as the proposed garage.

Ms Hudson stated that the Planning Officer has referred to number 36 having a garage in their front garden, however, that property is located on the corner of Elwyn Court and sits on a much larger plot and the garage is not 1 metre off the boundary, it is 3 metres. She added that the garage at number 36 does not run for 9 metres along the boundary which differs from the application and there are no windows affecting the neighbouring property along the boundary.

Ms Hudson stated that she agrees with all the objections of her neighbours, and she made the point that she also has a further objection with regards to the right to light and the reduction to her family’s quality of life that the garage will inflict due to blocking three windows to her kitchen, diner and family room. She made the point that when she received the letter from the Planning Officer advising of the first application, she went to see the neighbours at number 59 to discuss the concerns, especially as it was past her boundary line and nearer the road, explaining to them that any building along the boundary would affect the light to her families main living space and invited the neighbours to see firsthand as to how the garage would remove the natural light from her home, however, the neighbours declined the invitation and submitted their application which was subsequently amended slightly in height but this only took place after there were many objections and it was looking as though the application was likely to be refused.

Ms Hudson referred to the presentation screen and explained that the slide shows the proposed garage highlighted in red which is 8 metres by 9 metres and the size of a 2-bedroom bungalow, with the garage depicted in blue, and her kitchen family room can be seen marked in purple. She explained that if you look at the street view, the height of the building is almost in line with the eaves of number 59 and halfway between the ground and first floor shown by the red line in the bottom picture, with the garage being very close to the boundary at a distance of 1 metre and is 4.5 metres from her kitchen window.

Ms Hudson explained that there is an old 2.9 metre fence, but the proposed building is 4.3 metres high and, therefore, the building will block natural light and contrary to the officers’ views it will definitely be overbearing and oppressive. She explained that her property has had the benefit of natural light since it was built in 1937 and this benefit has been legally entitled to her by buyer prescription and she wished to retain the right to light.

Ms Hudson referred to the presentation screen and added that she has suggested a solution to demonstrate that she is not adverse to the neighbours having a double garage and the solution would mean that the wooden pagoda could me moved to the rear of the garden at which point the garden could go to the left or to the right at the back of the property and this would be supported by her without objection. She stated that the proposed garage is excessive in size, is detrimental to the street view and the property previously did have an integrated double garage, with the garage being oppressive and overbearing to number 63 depriving the property to the right to light.

Members asked Ms Hudson the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarification as to where the other property is sited to which she referred has a garage at the front? Ms Hudson stated that it is the property which officers had made reference to which she highlighted on the presentation screen to the committee. She added that it is unlike the proposed garage because it does not run all the way along the boundary, and it is approximately 3 metres away from the boundary line and the adjacent property does not have any windows to the side where the garage is and, therefore, would not be impacted.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the integrated garage. Ms Hudson highlighted this on the presentation screen and explained that the owners applied for a change of use and made it part of the dwelling.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall referred to the Ordnance Survey map on the presentation screen and highlighted number 36 on the screen, making the point that the double garage was approved by planning in 2012 and it is built out on the frontage, with the garage being extended in the last two years so it has now become a triple garage and is now closer to the boundary. He explained that the property next door is a chalet bungalow and referred to a point made by Ms Hudson which he disagreed with due to the fact that the property next door does have windows on the side facing the garage.

Mr Hall stated that he has looked at the character of the area and ascertained that 80 metres further up the road there is a garage at the front of the property which has been approved and extended and is higher than the proposal before the committee. He referred to the presentation screen and the 3D image which he has provided, which shows number 63 and also where the proposed garage will be built and stated that the property next door has no first-floor windows and there are three windows downstairs which in the officer’s report states are a toilet, cloakroom, and kitchen.

Mr Hall explained that from the screen members will see that there is a fence which is 2.9 metres in height and has been in place for over 10 years, which is where the proposed garage is going to be located and it is situated to the north of the property and that property is to the south. He referred to the presentation slides, explaining that the slide shows diagrams of an overshadowing survey which has been undertaken in July and August and demonstrate two drawings without the garage and two with the proposed garage on site and referred to the high fence which is there and is not in the ownership of the applicant, however, it can be seen that there is overshadowing of the windows now where the section of high fence is.

Mr Hall stated that the drawings which show the garage in situ and also in July and August appear to show additional overshadowing, however, it goes up to the first floor and there are no windows on first floor. He explained that the height of the garage has been decreased through the process to 4.3 metres with a shallow pitch roof and due to the height limitation, you can no longer stand up in the loft and, therefore, there will never be a room up there as there are no windows or doors facing next doors property, making the point that the garage is a metre from the boundary and 4.5 metres from the side of the neighbouring property.

Mr Hall referred to the officer’s report and stated that at 9.7 it states that the existing high fence already obscures the view of the existing windows which he also agrees with. He made the point that at 9.8 it states that the garage would not introduce any significant overshadowing impacts and at 9.9 there are no overlooking issues to address, and officers have also stated that the application is policy compliant.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Hicks asked whether the overshadowing survey was undertaken by Mr Hall’s office? Mr Hall explained that it was undertaken by one of his colleagues in the office and it is linked to ordnance datum from Google which gives sun paths.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that when he reviewed the site, the windows of the neighbouring property seem to be closer to the front of the property than what has been indicated in the overshadowing images. Mr Hall explained that he did not go round and measure the neighbouring property, however, the bricks were counted to position of the actual windows and a previous application from 2014 was reviewed which was on the next-door property.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he has considered the application and he questioned why the fence is so high as it would impact the neighbour from receiving natural light. He added that with the height of the existing fence and the fact that the height of the garage has been reduced he finds the shadowing survey very interesting and whilst he is not going to question its accuracy, in his opinion, the window does not appear to be in the correct place.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that he visited the site, and he indicated on the presentation screen where, in his opinion, the window is situated.

·         Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and demonstrated to the committee that if all the windows were moved along with no garage there would still be overshadowing in place.

·         Councillor Marks asked what the distance is from the end of the garage to the roadway? Mr Hall stated that it is 15 metres. Councillor Marks asked whether Mr Hall knows how that corresponds to the other property which he has referred to which has previously had planning permission? Mr Hall explained that the other building is a lot closer to the road and he highlighted that to the committee on the presentation screen.

·         Councillor Marks stated that Mr Hall has explained that he has undertaken work on the application site previously which had a double garage and he asked whether they were the same occupants who are now looking to include an extra garage? Mr Hall explained that it is his understanding that it was the previous occupants who converted the garage. Ms Hudson confirmed that they are new occupants who have lived there for 2 years.

·         Gavin Taylor responded to Councillor Marks earlier query regarding the distance from the end of the garage to the highway and confirmed that it is 16 metres at its nearest point to the highway.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that there are two chimney stacks on the neighbouring property and the actual window is closer to the chimney which is closest to the front of the road. He highlighted that point to the committee on the presentation screen. Mr Hall stated that if the windows are moved further forward in effect then they would still be overshadowed by the existing fence.

·         Councillor Marks stated that if you look at number one clearly by the drainpipe you can see the window clearly by the drainpipe and the projected overshadowing goes to the back of the property. He stated that there are still windows which suffer from overshadowing apart from one and he questioned that by adding the garage would that one window then suffer from the issue. Mr Hall made the point that the two windows that cannot be seen at the back as it stands now are overshadowed and the small window, which is 2 feet wide, and, in his view, there would still be some overshadowing from the fence and there would also be overshadowing if the garage was built onto the window and further up the wall.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Gerstner referred to the officer’s report and at 9.8 it states that it is not considered that the scheme would significantly impact on the neighbouring property by way of overshadowing. He added that the sun travels from east to west and unless there is an indicative illustration to show how far the sun moves round, the committee are unsure as to how much the overshadowing is impacting on that one particular window. Councillor Gerstner expressed the view that it is very difficult to use the static pictures and he has solely looked at the officer’s report and listened to what the objector and agent have said. He added that there is a slight conflict as the indicative pictures, in his opinion, do not appear to be quite correct as the windows are probably situated further along and the fence already produces overshadowing and, therefore, consideration must be given to the fact that if a garage is added how much further any overshadowing could become. Councillor Gerstner asked officers to provide an explanation to the point made at 9.8 of the report. Gavin Taylor stated that the path of the sun starts from the east and rotates southwards and ends westward and the windows along the northern elevation of number 63 would never receive direct sunlight possibly until the very late part of the day when the sun is in westerly lower position. He made the point that ultimately direct sunlight would not be directly streaming onto the northern face of number 63 and, therefore, the garage itself could not cast a shadow over the windows. Gavin Taylor stated that a pertinent point is with regard to the outlook from the windows and you can gain light and views of light as well as an outlook from the windows along the northern elevation. He made the point that there may not be overshadowing as a result of the path of the sun but there could be an impact on the light to a degree, although the fence already creates a disruption to the outlook anyway. Gavin Taylor stated that the garage is considered to be cited far enough away and taking into account the roof slopes away would not result in a significant impact.

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

·         Councillor Hicks stated that he is concerned about the proposal as he does not feel that it is compatible with the street scene and the houses along the road are all individual with spaces between them and the proposal is totally against that in his opinion. He made the point that he has considered whether he would want anything built close to his property if he lived at number 63 and, in his view, he would not. Councillor Hicks added that whether or not the proposal blocks out the light to the window is another matter, but the fact that the proposed garage is so close is intrusive in his opinion and he will be going against the officer’s recommendation and refusing the proposal as it is totally out of character with the other houses in the road.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the views of Councillor Hicks, and she made the point that, under Policy LP16, the application does have an adverse impact on the street scene. She stated that the houses on that side of the road are nice houses and the right-hand side is different as the plot sizes are bigger. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that number 63 is a nice-looking house and she would hate to have to look at this, making the point that it is a stark cold building and it does not do anything to enhance Elwyn Road and she will not support the application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with the views of members and added that there are some lovely houses in the road and if the hedge were to be removed at any time then it would be left with something totally out of character. He added that it would appear that there was already a garage at the property and he will not be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that the proposal would affect the street scene so much and it would look out of place in that location. He stated that he will not support the application.

Proposed by Councillor Hicks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED against the officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of approval as they feel that the proposal will be detrimental to the street scene and cause a loss of natural light to the neighbouring property.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council, but takes no part in planning)