Agenda item

The Committee noted that the application was a resubmission of a previous scheme.  The proposal had been amended to remove two roof lights details of which were set out in the report.  Members were asked to consider the effect of the proposal on the character of the area and the impact on neighbours.

It was suggested that there would be some impact on the amenity of No 42 Westminster Way but that this was not sufficient to warrant refusal, it being noted that the neighbour had a further window to his kitchen and the facing wall would be rendered a light colour allowing reflection of light back into the kitchen.

Mr Stevens made a statement on behalf of North Hinksey Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns regarding the maximum width of the existing house and its proximity to the boundary; the proposal being overbearing; design, in that there would be a long blank wall along the boundary; unneighbourliness; the extension being out of character particularly the pitched roof and the staggered front; the stepping back not overcoming the objections raised; the proposal being contrary to Policy H24 in terms of scale, mass and position, design and appearance causing demonstrable harm and loss of amenity; loss of privacy; overlooking; overshadowing; the proposal being contrary to Planning Policy Guidance in terms of the proximity to the neighbouring boundary and the proposal being harmful to the street scene.

Mr Carpenter, the neighbouring resident made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding loss of natural light to his property; adverse impact on the street scene; the principle of infill development and blight which would result; the setting of a precedent and harmful visual impact in that there would be the illusion of a terraced property.

Mr Mohammed the applicant made a statement in support of the application commenting that the property had been unoccupied for 3 years and had been neglected for 10 years.  He advised that he had sought a design which was sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area and that he had consulted the neighbours regarding the proposal. He reported that the design was aimed at limiting overshadowing and that the proposal had been reduced in size and set back to reduce terracing.  He reported that his property was overshadowed.  He commented that a sky light to the bathroom had been removed and the extension had been reset at various points.  He explained that the site had been tided up and that the proposal accorded with planning policy.

One of the local Members referred to concerns raised locally regarding this development.  She referred to the building and its proximity to the boundary and agreed that rendering and painting the facing wall might mitigate some concerns regarding loss of light.  She referred to a building constructed in the garden of the application site although it was noted that this was allowed under permitted development rights.  Finally, she referred to the state of the footpath and grassed area fronting the highway which was untidy due to building works and she questioned whether the applicant could be required to make these areas good.

The Officers clarified that the proposal complied with design guidelines and that the design respected the privacy of the neighbours.  It was explained that an informative could be added to any permission advising of the need to make good any damage caused to the footpath and grassed area as a result of the building works.

Some Members spoke in support of the applicant considering that there was insufficient harm caused to warrant refusal of the application.  Furthermore, the site was to the North East of the neighbouring property and the windows affected by the development were secondary and Planning Inspectors tended to place less emphasis on the need to safeguard levels of amenity offered by secondary windows.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/6423/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and to an Informative advising that the Council would expect the applicant to restore the path and grass area adjoining the highway.