Rear and side extension (as clarified by corrected proposed rear elevation received 19 October 2021 and by drawings received 22 November 2021, demonstrating an obscured glazed side facing window).
The committee considered application P21/S4038/HH for a rear and side extension (as clarified by corrected proposed rear elevation received 19 October 2021 and by drawings received 22 November 2021, demonstrating an obscured glazed side facing window).
Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.
The planning officer explained that the application had been brought before the committee due to a call-in from the local ward member. The application was a two-story detached property which rose steeply from north to south, with properties stepping up in-line with the slope. The planning officer noted the concerns of neighbouring residents and the parish council’s concerns on the amenities of number 24, which was set lower due to the gradient on Ladder Hill. However, number 24 projected further out rear wise than number 26, and the proposed rear and side extensions did not go out further than number 24, and this complied with the SODC guide for the 45 degree rule.
A condition had been recommended to ensure that the side-facing window facing number 24 would be obscured glazed and non-opening to mitigate any concerns on overlooking, and the planning officer felt this would address the concerns surrounding privacy. The agent had provided plans for a fallback position for use under permitted development which included a rear and side extension of the existing property. Due to the fallback position of extensions of a similar size, the application was not unneighbourly and complied with design guidance in the SODC design guide, and with policy DES6 of the local plan. Subject to the proposed conditions, the application was recommended for approval.
Bharti Reddy and Chris Doughty, local residents, spoke against the application.
Fiammetta Gray and Kate Carruthers, the agent and applicant respectively, spoke in support of the application.
The committee asked the speakers if they could clarify their access to the courtyard. The speakers responded that there was an opening door within the side extension and the door pivoted into the courtyard and would also be glazed, in order to bring light into the extension.
The statement of Councillor Alexandrine Kantor, the ward member, was read out to the committee.
The committee asked whether the obscured window was next to the sunken courtyard and whether it could be changed at a later date by a possible future resident. The planning officer confirmed the obscured window faced the sunken courtyard, but as it was a condition, it could not be changed without a new planning application. A follow-up question was asked, seeking confirmation whether all windows that were facing number 24 would be obscure glazed. The response to this question was that only the new window would be obscured glaze, and planning officers could not demand any alteration to existing windows on the property. In response to a second supplementary question on the windows, the planning officer also confirmed that the new window would be non-opening and was fixed shut.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P21/S4038/HH subject to the following conditions:
1. Commencement three years – Full Planning Permission
2. Approved plans
3. Materials as on plan
4. Obscure glazing