Agenda item

The application was for the variation of condition 3 of approval 15/0686 (two storey and single storey rear extensions) to enable minor material amendments including an increase in the size of the bedroom window on the northwest first floor side elevation and addition of obscure glazing film. (Amended plan recv'd 4/5/16).

The application would normally be determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation. However, at the request of the Executive Head of Regulatory, it was reported to the Planning Applications Committee for determination.

 

A site visit took place at this site.

 

Members were advised of the following updates:

 

A two page email, as an addition to the original objection has been received, plus a 9 page representation in response to the officer’s report. On request of the objector, this representation has been circulated to Members. However, the key points made by the objector at no. 25 are summarised and commented on below:

 

§    Summary of report does not reflect the objector’s concerns.

 

§    Para 1.2 of report - The objector considers there to be a significant difference to levels, not slight. No reference has been made to the fourth first floor window serving the half landing.

 

§    Para 4.2 - Does not refer to the increased depth of the window.

 

[Officer comment: For clarity the application form states that the height/depth would amend from 1.22 m to 1.25 m i.e. an increase by 0.03 m]

 

§    Page 105 - 2^nd  bullet point - Officer’s comments relating to design guidance is dismissive of the objector’s concerns when the maintenance of a neighbour’s privacy remains central to the decision making process.

 

§    Page 105 - 3^rd bullet point - The drawing showing the ground floor window is misleading and inaccurate.

 

[Officer comment: To regularise the situation a corrected drawing has been received].

 

§    Page 105 4th bullet point - Disagrees that there is no conflict with the Human Rights Act.

 

§    7.1.2 - Objector disagrees with the reasons as to why application 15/0686 was allowed.

 

§    7.1.3 - The applicant inserted a larger window than the approved plans with a more intrusive positioning and it is therefore misleading to say that they commenced the works in good faith.

 

§    7.2.2 - The case officer did not go into the rear garden and therefore can make no judgement about the level of intrusion here

 

[Officer comment: A judgement could be made from standing and viewing from the applicant’s bedroom. However, the officer did go into the rear garden during the Member site visit]

 

§    7.2.3 - Explanation needed on how actual impact is judged and what is meant by perceived impact. Queries the difference latticing/leading makes and what is meant by the nature of these rooms. Objector disagrees with the statement relating to difficulty to gain full view of the window from the kitchen. There is actual impact on the enjoyment of the kitchen.

 

[Officer comment: A judgement has to be made on the merits of the case based upon adopted policy and site specific circumstances. The objector perceives/interprets the harm as greater than the case officer’s professional assessment of the seriousness of the impact. Latticing has the effect of interrupting views from a window, although this is a moot point. In respect of the nature of the rooms the overlooking effects are greater on primary/habitable spaces i.e. the kitchen/dining area, than the other secondary rooms affected (including the landing, utility room, bathroom and downstairs toilet) where normally usage is less; and, the bathroom/toilet windows also have obscure glazing]

 

§    7.2.4 - Objector disagrees with statement that the patio cannot be seen.

 

[Officer comment: The objector has not viewed from inside the applicant’s window. The photographs on pages 110 and 111 of the agenda pack show the extent of visibility]

 

§    7.2.5 - Queries the relevancy of making reference to permitted development rights in relation to the potential to insert a larger window.

 

[Officer comment: The purpose of this statement is for information purposes to advise what control PD rights actually give]

 

§    7.2.6 - Queries who decides when the film is degraded enough to need replacing, how this would be implemented and whether a planning officer would visit to make a judgement.

 

[Officer comment: If a complaint was received in the future then this condition would provide the level of control for the Planning Authority to investigate and take any necessary action. The window would be inspected on site as part of this process]

 

§    7.2.7 - Queries the relevancy of reference to permitted development rights in respect of the obscure glazing rating.

 

[Officer comment: The purpose of this statement is to explain that the film inserted is effective as it meets the same standard otherwise required by PD]

 

§    7.2.8 - The applicant resorting back to the original approval would be preferable.

 

[Officer comment: If the applicant resorted back to the original approval then there would be no obligation for any obscure glazing given that permission was granted with no condition, see para. 7.1.3]

 

§    7.2.9 - Request the window frame to be replaced. The objector does not consider switching a hinge without removing the casement to be an option. It is unreasonable to make a decision based on the applicant’s current usage of the room and on the basis of promises.

[Officer comment: The applicant has now sourced a local supplier who is able to reverse the direction of the window. See recommended condition below in the event that Members consider this to be necessary. It is accepted that this room could be used differently in the future, and the window could be opened more frequently. The objector has since advised that they would welcome this change]

 

§    9.1 - The report is full of errors, omissions, misleading statements and untruths. It is biased.

 

§    The two page email reiterates the concerns addressed above. In addition, this email consider the photographs used on the agenda not to be fully representative of the overall impact. On request of the objector further photographs have been circulated to Members.

 

Additional Recommended Condition 3

 

3.     Within 3 months of the date of this permission the casement window serving the bedroom in the first floor side elevation shall be hinged in the opposite direction so that it swings open to the rear of the property. Thereafter there shall be no changes to the openings of the window unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In the interests of good neighbourliness to prevent open views to the rear of the property to safeguard the privacy levels of no.25 Diamond Ridge and to comply with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012.

 

Resolved that application 16/0365 be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory, and as amended.

 

Note 1

The recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Robin Perry and seconded by Councillor Colin Dougan.

 

Note 2

In accordance with Part 4 Section D paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to this application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application:

 

Councillors David Allen, Nick Chambers, Mrs Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Ruth Hutchinson, Katia Malcaus Cooper, David Mansfield, Max Nelson, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Conrad Sturt, and Victoria Wheeler.