Agenda item

Application No.220654 - 14 Chiltern Drive, Charvil

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Minutes:

Proposal: Application to vary condition 2 of application 212989 for the proposed erection of a single storey rear extension with 1 no. roof light following demolition of existing conservatory and existing rear extension (part retrospective). Condition 2 refers to the approved plans and the variation is to allow an increase in the height of the roof. (Retrospective).

 

Applicant: Mr Harguns

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 135 to 152.

 

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

 

·         Clarification that Councillor Sam Akhtar listed the item due to the potential impact on neighbours due to loss of privacy;

·         Updated condition 5.

 

Danny Murphy, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. Danny stated that the ward member for Charvil, Sam Akhtar, had previously addressed the Committee to advise that he had made comments on the application and had acted as a mediator between the local residents and the owner. Danny added that Sam had in fact not commented on the original retrospective application, nor did he comment on this application, and not even to have it listed. Danny commented that Sam had not acted as a mediator between the applicant and any residents, and the Supplementary Planning Agenda had noted the reason for listing as the application having a potential impact on the neighbours due to loss of privacy. Danny queried whether this was the only point that the Committee could base their decision on, or whether other issues that residents raised concerns about could be considered. Danny stated that he objected to the application based on persistent breaches and breaching on and over his boundary, resulting in the cumulative loss of light and amenity. Danny stated that whilst he was happy that so many members managed to attend the site visit, he was disappointed that residents were not allowed to engage in discussions, and members subsequently had to rely solely on the word of the planning officer, who Danny noted had knowingly accepted inaccurate drawings and had used them in decision making for the previous retrospective planning application. Danny added that the planning officer had used an image at the last Committee meeting from a Google Street view to prove that the extension could not be seen from the street, despite this image being from July 2019 and showing no recent extensions. Danny referenced a recent photograph which showed the recent extension from the street and the obtrusive angles which were also visible from the street. Danny stated that a photo was shown at the previous Committee meeting which was taken in November 2021, prior to the retrospective application being decided whilst being in contrast to the up to date photograph. Danny stated that the plans had since changed again, however no attempt had been made to correct the inaccurate details that had hidden the changes on the western boundary. Danny felt that these issues were indicative of his experience in dealing with the Council over the past 11 months, whereby anguish and stress had been caused through 3 sets of plans, 2 enforcement investigations, 2 retrospective planning applications, 2 Committee meetings and a site visit. Danny added that the reasons for this retrospective application, including the steel and additional height, were all known prior to the original retrospective application being decided however they were not dealt with at the time. Danny queried why the planning teams accepted and continued to accept inaccurate plans. Danny felt that it was clear to see why residents had lost faith in the planning process when their voices were constantly dismissed whilst the Council manipulated facts to support their decision. Danny asked that the Committee refuse the application, and consider the previous developments and breaches and cumulative effects on neighbours within the wider area.

 

Jeff Asemi, agent, spoke in support of the application. Jeff stated that the application was to vary condition 2 of application 212989, which was approved for a rear extension of number 14 Chiltern Drive. Jeff stated that the extension replaced the previous structure which was higher than the current extension, where there was a pitched room adjacent to number 12 Chiltern Drive which was higher than the current flat roof that replaced it. Jeff stated that the current extension was smaller in length than the original structure, whilst photos had been submitted to the planning officer showing no shadows being cast to the adjacent property at number 12. The properties on Pennine Way were unaffected by the development because of the walls at number 14, and Jeff felt that their objection should be dismissed. Jeff stated that the small height increase was on the roof away from number 12, and it was an existing steel structure which replaced the previous extension. Jeff added that the skylights were in the centre of the extension away from the adjacent properties, resulting in no overlooking or loss of light impacts on the neighbouring properties. Jeff added that the applicant had never tried to hide the height increase, and had invited neighbours from number 12 round to discuss the changes. Jeff condoned some of the language used by objectors, and thanked the Committee for taking their time to visit the site for consideration of this application, whilst the applicant was refused a meeting with the parish Council to discuss the application.

 

Sam Akhtar, ward member, commented on the application. Sam thanked the Committee for their time and consideration of this application, and added that he was really keen for both parties to get a resolution matter with a view to move on in the future.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh sought clarity that the previous structure was a glass conservatory and not brick, and stated that the impression he got at the site visit was that the increased height was an issue and the building was overbearing, whilst querying whether an informative might be reasonable if the application was approved encouraging the applicant to install blinds in the skylight to shield neighbouring properties from light pollution. James Fuller, case officer, stated that the previous structure was a glass conservatory, and added that the size of the rooflight was not excessive. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that there was no legal strength given to informatives, and should the extension have been 25cm lower there would have been no restrictions on how much light could be emitted, in the same way that planning policy could not restrict how much light an individual emitted from their bedroom window.

 

Stephen Conway stated that he had not been able to attend the site visit, which had not allowed him to fully appreciate any bulk and massing. Stephen stated his sympathy for Mr Murphy, who appeared to have persistent problems with multiple applications with several being retrospective, with differences in built form compared to what was approve, which had created tension. Stephen commented that he would rely on the impressions from members who attended the site visit as to whether the development was overbearing.

 

Gary Cowan stated that he felt sorry for the neighbours, and added that he would likely abstain as he had not been able to attend the site visit. Gary queried whether more than one retrospective planning application was allowed. Brian Conlon confirmed that an application could not be refused purely based on the fact that it was retrospective, and noted that the same substantive application could not be submitted twice.

 

David Cornish was of the opinion that officers had clearly felt that the original condition was proportional and necessary, and saw no reason to agree the condition was wrong in the first instance and should now be changed. Brian Conlon stated that the Committee needed to consider whether the change between the approved plans and the proposal was sufficiently harmful to refuse, and not the principle of the change.

 

John Kaiser queried whether this application would be approved as a whole if it was submitted now. Brian Conlon stated that as this application was being recommended for approval, considering it was built in its entirety, suggested that the Council supported the development, whilst noting that this application was not seeking permission for the whole development as all bar 25cm of the structure was approved already.

 

Chris Bowring was of the opinion that such a small increase in height was not detrimental in planning terms, and questioned what impact a reduction of 25cm would have.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh stated that after considering all comments made in addition to the agenda paperwork, he wished to move a motion to approve the application.

 

RESOLVED That application number 220654 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 136 to 137, and updated condition 5 as set out within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Supporting documents: