Agenda item

Mr R Carr made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically referred to the loss of light to his family bathroom.  He compared the proposal to neighbouring houses where there was limited light to some windows explaining that these situations had been created at the original build stage and had resulted in loss of light to ensuite bathroom windows and not main family bathroom windows.  He commented that the applicant had been advised that planning permission existed although this was not the case and he questioned why this had not become apparent to the applicant when he had purchased the property.   He expressed concern that the extension was not set back and recommended refusal.

Mr Richard Patterson, the applicant made a statement in support of the application explaining that he had purchased the property which had been advertised as benefiting from planning permission.  He commented that the lack of planning permission had not been highlighted during his purchase of the property and prior to the commencement of works he had informed the Council of his intention to do so.  The Council had carried out inspections during construction and a building regulations certificate had been received.  He expressed his support for the proposal commenting that the window affected was to a non habitable room and that daylight factors did not apply.  He referred to the terracing affect, reporting that the proposal complied with the relevant policy.  He explained that there would be little difference in terms of impact if the extension was set back half a metre.  Finally, he referred to the significant amount of time this matter had been ongoing commenting that there was no reason to refuse permission.

One of the local Members referred to the confusion regarding whether there was planning permission and the difference between that and a Building Regulations Certificate.  She asked Members to consider the proposal regardless of this commenting that whilst she had no concerns regarding the terracing affect, she was concerned regarding the serious adverse impact on the neighbour through loss of light to his bathroom window, which was about 1 metre away from the extension.  However, she commented that it was difficult to determine whether pulling back the extension by a metre would improve the situation.   She reported that the Town Council had suggested that the side wall facing the neighbour should be painted white, but again she was unsure whether that would improve the situation. 

Another local Member expressed his concern regarding the history of this application and suggested that consideration of the proposal should be deferred to the next meeting when details of the history could be explained in full. 

In response the Officers explained that the history of how the application had been processed was irrelevant and that Members should have regard to the planning merits of the proposal.  Also the fact that the application was retrospective was not a material planning consideration. 

One Member spoke in support of the application suggesting that Members needed to weigh up whether the presumption in favour of development was outweighed by the loss of light to the neighbour’s bathroom window.  He commented that the proposal was reasonable.

One Member spoke against the application suggesting that the proposal was too bulky and the adverse impact on the neighbouring property was sufficient to warrant refusal. He suggested that approval would set a precedent for other similar developments.  Finally, he commented that whilst the Committee might be more concerned about the impact on habitable rooms, it did not necessarily mean that there should be no concern for the protection of other windows.

By 11 votes to 5, with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/15852/2 – D be approved subject to the condition set out in the report.