To consider a householder full planning application from Mrs Scott for a rear flat roof extension.
The Committee considered a report from the planning officers, in relation to a full housholder planning application from Mrs Jackie Scott for a rear flat roof extension. The Committee were advised that as the consultation period had now expired the planning officers now recommended that the Committee grant the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report.
A planning officer presented details of the application with the aid of various maps, plans and photographs.
In accordance with the Committee’s Speaking Rights Scheme Mr M Dunston of Silloth Place had been granted permission to speak to the Committee. Mr Dunston stated that he had not objected to the original rear extension at 14 Fairfield Drive even though it had had a detrimental effect on visual amenity and light. This additional extension would have a greater effect. He explained that he had a small back garden extending 6 metres from the rear of his house. The proposed extension would extend to a point 1.6m from the boundary between the properties and would stand 3.4 metres high. Consequently the development would have a visual impact and would affect the light, casting a shadow across his garden. Mr Dunston also stated that the proposed extension would change the character of the area where most properties had gardens to the rear of their properties. A precedent would be set allowing other gardens to be lost.
The applicant, Mrs Scott, who was accompanied by Councillor S Graham, addressed the Committee to respond to the speaker’s comments. Mrs Scott explained that neither of her immediate neighbours had objected to the application. The four residents in Silloth Place who had objected had each extended their own homes thereby reducing the size of their gardens. She stated that lots of properties in the surrounding area had added flat roofed extensions and the design of the proposal was the same style as those commonly found in the area. The outlook for residents in Silloth Place would be no different to the existing extension. A proposed pagola would be set away from the boundary fence and the chimney would cause no offence.
Members of the Committee asked questions of Mrs Scott and officers and made comments. In doing so the Committee gave particular consideration to:
a) the proposed use of the extension as a snug;
b) the age of the original extension constructed in 2014;
c) the likely impact of the proposed development on the visual amenity of residents living on Silloth Place; and
d) the design of the proposed development and its impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Resolved that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the planning officers report.
(Reasons for decision: The Committee concluded that, having regard to the relevant policies contained in the Council’s Local Plan 2017 and National Planning Policy Framework, the proposed development was acceptable in terms of its impact on the visual amenity of neighbours and the character and appearance of the area.)