Issue - meetings

Decision

Approved

Officer’s Report

The PO – CG introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He established the sites location, existing and proposed elevations, images of the site and relationship with neighbouring properties. The dwelling was neither in a conservation area, nor was listed, though was unique for the area for its use of construction materials. The PO-CW confirmed that when considering the erection of a balcony, one of the principle concerns was impact on the amenity of others.

The relationship between 23B and 23 was considered to be poor, with 23B being heavily overlooked with little privacy. The PO-CG argued that the amenity harm was reduced as the area was already overlooked. The objection had been received from 23A, 30 metres away not 23B. The PO-CG affirmed that if Members concluded that there was no harm to 23B, then it would be difficult to argue there was any harm to 23A. Property 4 Morris Close (to the rear) had a small window facing on to the balcony. The Case Officer reflected that due to the existing balcony and the nature and form of the property that amenity would not be harmed. The proposed balcony was large enough for small group to gather, but not large enough to host larger parties, therefore it was not considered that this may attract unusual or excessive levels of noise for a residential area.

The PO-CG advised that the proposed veranda fell within permitted development, and it was therefore just the balcony requiring planning permission. He considered that the proposed scheme was in keeping with the colonial character and appearance of the host dwelling.

Public Speakers

None

Members Debate and Questions

1. The DM recited a statement prepared by the Local Member – Cllr R Sims. The Local Member considered the old and unique nature of the building, made of Canadian Wood, which he was surprised was not listed. Due to the internal configuration of the building he considered that whilst the ground floor extension would not interfere with neighbours, the extension of balcony would result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. Cllr R Sims endorsed the Committee attend a site visit.

2. Cllr A Brown noted the Officer’s representation, that the veranda was consistent with  permitted development,, further, the issues surrounding privacy were somewhat diluted given the distance and use of the balcony, and layout of neighbouring properties. He proposed approvals of the Officers recommendation.

3. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett took no issue with the proposal and expressed her support for the attempts to match the extension with the host dwelling. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett seconded the Officers recommendation.

RESOLVED by 11 for and 1 against

That Planning Application PF/23/1029 be approved in accordance with the Officers recommendation.