Agenda item

HOLT - PF/22/0226: Construction of two storey side extension at Orchard Cottage, 23 Hempstead Road, Holt

Minutes:

The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He highlighted for members the location of the proposal and its proximity to nearby terraced houses, particularly to those at the rear of the property. The North-West extension to the property had not been objected to by Holt Town Council, however an objection had been received from a neighbouring dwelling, outlined in the Agenda Pack.

 

The DMTL advised that the key areas for consideration were firstly, the design of the proposed development and its effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area. He noted that the eaves and ridge height had been steeped down slightly to help give the impression that the extension was subservient to the host dwelling. The proposed external materials were intended to match those of the existing dwelling. Second, the impact of the proposal to the living conditions of the occupiers of the dwellings to the rear at 15 to 21 Hempstead Road with regards to loss of light and overshadowing. It had been acknowledged that there would be some impact but not to a degree which would justify refusal given the separation between those properties and the proposed development. With regards to privacy, the first floor bedroom window in the rear of the extension had been omitted in the revised plans and replaced by a roof light to serve the bedroom, and a small window to serve the bathroom which would be obscure glaze. The separation between the window and the first floor windows of the closest dwellings (15 & 17 Hempstead Road) was in excess of the separation distance suggested in the amenity criteria in the North Norfolk design guide.

 

Public Speakers:

Richard Robson – Supporting

Mr Norman – Objecting (Written Statement read by DMTL)

 

      i.        The MPM recited a statement from the Local Member – Cllr G Perry-Warnes, who was unable to attend the meeting. Cllr G Perry-Warnes wrote that she did not consider that the proposal complied with policy EN4 of the North Norfolk Design guide in that the scale and massing of the extension would fail to relate sympathetically to the surrounding area and to neighbouring properties. In addition, the proposal would have a significant detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers of the old railway workers cottages, which would present an overbearing and imposing impact on the current skyline and block any winter sun from their outside area. She commented that the Design Guide stated that extensions should be sited to avoid any loss of light or privacy to neighbours, and stressed it should not result in any overshadowing or overbearing effects. The Local Member encouraged the Committee, if it were minded to approve the recommendation, to delay making its decision which would have an impact on local residents, and to arrange a site visit before making its assessment.

 

     ii.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle stated that he did not consider the proposal to be a particularly large extension and asked Officers if the loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties, as a consequence of the proposal, had been tested. The DMTL advised that this had been a judgement made by the Case Officer, and that he was not aware that a calculation had been conducted.

 

    iii.        Cllr R Kershaw expressed his disappointment that the Local Members were not in attendance, and stated that he did not believe the application to be controversial and considered that it would improve the frontage of the road, and so proposed acceptance of the Officers Recommendation for approval.

 

   iv.        Cllr N Pearce agreed it was regretful that the Local Members were not in attendance to represent their views. He stated that the proposal was a sensitive and modest extension, and reflected on the health and wellbeing of the applicant. Cllr N Pearce acknowledged that some light would be lost, and that it was difficult to define what ‘a little light’ actually meant. He supported comments made by Cllr R Kershaw, that the extension would tidy up and improve the frontage, without increasing the footprint of the property. Cllr N Pearce seconded the Officers Recommendation.

 

     v.        Cllr J Toye reflected that the matters for consideration in determining the application were privacy and access to light by neighbouring dwellings. He commented that perhaps during winter months, when the sun was particularly low and there was already limited light, there may be some loss of light caused by consequence of the development, but that this would not be huge.

 

   vi.        The Chairman affirmed that loss of privacy and light were planning considerations, but that there was no right to a view as set out in planning law.

 

  vii.        Cllr A Brown expressed his support for comments raised by Members in support of the application, and wished to correct some aspects Officers report, first, that the scale and massing of the property would not increase by 50%, rather it would likely increase by 25%. He stated that under the NNDC design guide a minimum distance of 9m should exist between properties, and that this was met, and that all policies were satisfied through the proposal.  Cllr A Brown stated that Members were obliged to approve an application under planning policy unless material considerations dictate otherwise.

 

 viii.        Cllr A Yiasimi thanked officers for their report, and agreed with Members that the street scene would be improved by the proposal, giving a better unified appearance.  He was pleased to note the enhancements made with relation to the instillation of bat boxes.

 

RESOLVED by 11 votes for and 1 against.

 

That Planning Application PF/22/0226 be APPROVED subject to conditions relating to the following matters and any others considered necessary by the

Assistant Director for Planning.

 

·         Time limit for implementation

·         Approved plans

·         Materials

·         Installation of bat enhancement measures

·         Obscure glazed window (Pilkington Level 5)

 

Final wording of conditions to be delegated to the Assistant Director for Planning.

 

Supporting documents: