Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a two storey side and rear extension.

The Chair referred to advice from one of the Council’s Legal Advisors. The advice to SAC was that Mr Gibbs-Sier could speak to the Committee for 3 minutes. He could provide a brief written summary of what he would say in the allotted time, but not introduce any additional written material. The letter/submission in circulation cites parts of the law and extracts from a neighbours letter. The Legal Advisor recommended that this letter was disregarded at this stage not least because the neighbour has had no chance to respond. If an appeal were made because of a decision SAC made tonight, legal issues could be addressed then.

As part of his introduction the Principal Planning Officer referred to two emails he had received from Mr Gibbs-Sier. The emails were received after the deadline for questions/representations, but as they dealt with factual queries, the Principal Planning Officer sought Chair’s approval to address them at this point. Chair’s approval was given and the Principal Planning Officer did so.

Mr Gibbs-Sier’s points were:

       i.          That Para 8.5 of the Case Officer’s report states “The proposed rear Extension projects approx.1.46m further back than the rear of the existing garage.”

The Principal Planning Officer agreed that this should read 1m.

     ii.          There is an implication in Case Officer’s report (eg para 8.7) that the rear Extension will extend beyond the South wall of No. 20.

The Principal Planning Officer could not detect this implication in the report, but confirmed that the proposed extension would not so extend, and referred to the drawing attached as D1 to the application.

   iii.          That the statement in Para 8.5 of the report: “The submitted shadow study illustrates the proposed extension will not cause significant additional loss of light to the neighbouring property.” was somewhat disingenuous as the case officer had seen in March the shadow study attached as M1 to the application,  stating there would be an increase in  sunlight.

The Principal Planning Officer indicated that he felt the details given in para 8.5 remained factually correct.

Mr Gibbs-Sier (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application. SAC allowed Mr Gibbs-Sier to make reference to Buxton and Hunter legal cases as these were pertinent to his representation.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Marsh.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Empathised that Mr Gibbs-Sier wanted to improve his property, but would prefer a single storey not a two storey extension.

     ii.          Raised the following specific concerns:

·       The two storey development would be built right up to the boundary. It would overlook the landing window of number 20, be visually intrusive and reduce light.

·       Overshadowing the kitchen and living room of number 20.

·       There would only be a 3 – 4 foot gap between buildings at numbers 18 and 20 Worts Causeway at the narrowest point. This would also reduce light in the passageway and lead to a claustrophobic feel.

·       Queried the impact of the proposed development on the value of number 20.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions) to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report.