Agenda item

1. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/00861/HOUSE in respect of the construction of a single storey rear extension and a two storey extension at Cherry Hinton, Newbury Hill. Hampstead Norreys.
2. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor David Barlow, Parish Council representative, and Ms Teresa Fleetwood, Mr Andy Wilcock, Mr Michael Binns, objectors, addressed the Committee on this application.
3. Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy and other material considerations. In conclusion the reports detailed that the proposals were acceptable and conditional approval was justifiable. Officers on balance recommended the Committee grant planning permission.
4. Paul Goddard advised that there would be no change to the access to the property and there was sufficient parking. A condition to minimise disruption during construction was recommended.
5. Councillor Barlow in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         17 letters objecting to the application had been received by the Council.

·         It was disappointing that the Conservation Officer had been unable to comment on the application as the site was close to the conservation area and in his opinion constituted overdevelopment of the site.

·         Cherry Hinton was visible from 1 and 2 Church Street, flint walled properties built in 1910.

·         The Parish Council had been unanimous in its objection to the proposed extension.

·         Neighbours would be overlooked and there would be detriment to their wellbeing and privacy.

·         It was possible to extend the house on the other side without impact on neighbours.

·         It would be contrary to the Council’s Core Strategy and the NPPF to approve the application

6.    Councillor Garth Simpson asked to be shown the location of Cherry Hinton in relation to the conservation area. Councillor Barlow indicated the location of the conservation area on the block plan.

7. Ms Fleetwood, Mr Wilcock, Mr Binns in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Wilcock explained that he lived at 1 Church Street which bordered Cherry Hinton.

·         He did not object to the single storey rear extension but the side extension was shocking in terms of scale and impact.

·         The case officer had written to the applicant regarding the dominance and private amenity impact of the proposals. Plans were resubmitted and the reduction in size from the original plans was less than 10%.

·         There would be a direct view from the rear of the property into 1 Church Street’s courtyard garden and a frosted window was not sufficient to reduce the impact on privacy.

·         There would be a significant impact on the amount of light his property received because the extension would be only a foot away from the boundary and 15ft from the house. There was already a 4ft ground level difference and the extension would be 20ft tall.

·         The block plan shown to the Committee was incorrect.

·         The case officer’s concerns regarding the dominance and private amenity impact of the proposals had not been adequately addressed and the recommendation to grant planning permission was unjustified.

·         It was possible for the applicant to make improvements and modernise the property without such a negative impact on neighbours.

8.    Councillor Simpson asked for further information regarding the distance between the properties. Mr Wilcock advised that the distance would be 20ft from the middle of 1 Church Street’s courtyard and the upstairs window. 

9.    Councillor von Celsing in addressing the Committee as Ward Member, made the following points:

·         It was unfortunate that the Conservation Officer had not been able to comment as a result of workload issues.

·         It was accepted that the rear extension could be completed under permitted development rights and it was the side extension which was of concern. It would be too close to neighbouring properties and the differing ground levels lead to it being overbearing.

10. Councillor Pick asked to what extent the roof height had been lowered in the resubmitted plans. Derek Carnegie confirmed it was around 1.5ft and the ground level difference was around 4ft.

11. Councillor Cole asked whether the windows to the extension would be non-opening. Derek Carnegie stated they should have obscure glazing and be non-opening.

12. Councillor Cole further asked to see the correct block plan. (the block plan was circulated to the Committee).

13. Councillor Simpson asked what daylight analysis had been undertaken. Derek Carnegie advised that only on-site observations had been undertaken. Councillor Simpson expressed concern that 1 Church Street’s courtyard was already small and would become dark should the extension to Cherry Hinton be built.

14. Councillor Clive Hooker enquired whether the size of the remaining garden would be acceptable when the rear extension was constructed. Derek Carnegie advised that officers were content that the remaining space would be sufficient.

15. Councillor Pick expressed the view that the plans could be improved and at present would be dominant and effect the amenity of the residents of 1 Church Street.

16. Councillor Simpson stated that at first he thought he would begrudgingly accept officer’s recommendation to approve permission however at the site visit he had been appalled to learn the extent to which the extension would tower over 1 Church Street’s backyard. He thought there would be an unacceptable loss of light and a terracing effect. He proposed that the committee reject officer’s recommendations and refuse planning permission. The proposal was seconded by Councillor von Celsing.

17. Councillor Cole stated that he did not think the plans were reasonable. He asked officers whether the impact on the neighbour’s amenity was a valid reason for refusal. Derek Carnegie responded that officers were of the view that the impact of the extension would not cause a level of harm to justify refusal of planning permission.

18. Councillor Hewer stated that he was familiar with the area and noted that the proposal would cause an imposition however was aware of an application with similar issues in Eddington which had been allowed and therefore would reluctantly accept the officers’ recommendation.

19. Councillor Benneyworth expressed the view that if the Council refused planning permission and the applicant appealed it was likely that the decision could be overturned. Councillor Cole asked for Derek Carnegie’s view who reiterated that officers’ balanced view was that the harm caused by the development was not sufficiently significant to warrant refusal.

20. Councillor Pick stated that he would be less worried if 1 Church Street had a similar sized courtyard to 2 Church Street and thought the proposal would be overbearing.

21. The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Simpson as seconded by Councillor von Celsing. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Reasons

dominance