Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 20/01692/FPH be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons below:

The proposed extensions by reason of their size, siting, and design cumulatively with previous enlargements to the dwelling would fail to be subordinate to the host dwelling and would be harmful to its character and appearance and that of the locality.  The proposal would be contrary to the provision of Saved Policies 28 and 57 of the North Herts District Local Plan 1996, Policies D1 and D2 of the Emerging Local Plan and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Audio Recording: 3 hours 29 minutes

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update to the report that the applicant had agreed to an extension of time up to 26 November which had not been in place at the time of publication.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01692/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Councillor Mike Hughson

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised:

·                The drawing in the presentation was not a document submitted by the applicant and therefore any errors should not be considered as part of the application;

The Chair invited Mr Jonathan West to address the Committee.

Mr Jonathan West thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak in objection to application 20/01692/FPH including:

·                Mr West was resident at 7 Sterling Close;

·                The House on 6 Cubitt Close had been extended further since the drawing in the presentation was made;

·                Mr West’s property and the property in the application shared a side boundary;

·                When it was first built 6 Cubitt Close was one of the largest 4 bedroomed domiciles on the development;

·                Since then the footprint of the house not including conservatories or greenhouses have increased by 2.6x its original size by way of single and double storey extensions;

·                This was the 16^th application to the planning authority concerning the property;

·                There was already an extension less than 1 meter away from the boundary with Mr West’s property which spanned the length of their garden and a third of their house, with a window that looked directly into their garden and lounge;

·                The present planning application mentioned the destruction of an existing ‘conservatory,’ where the original application for said structure to be destroyed described it as a ‘greenhouse,’; it had no floor, heating, lighting, and never been used as a living space.

·                Mr West felt describing the structure as a conservatory would lead Members to consider the proposed new conservatory as a replacement of an existing one;

·                The proposed conservatory was bigger and in a different position to the first and the destruction of the greenhouse should bear no relevance;

·                The proposed conservatory would overlook Mr West’s dining room and would be directly below the windows of his bedroom causing issues with noise as a result of poor insulation;

·                The proposed development would result in an overall increase of 2.9x the original footprint of the property;

·                Loud construction works on previous projects had extended into unsociable hours and it appeared no attempt had been made to comply with noise control measures;

·                The Environmental Health noise abatement team had investigated;

·                The application would result in an over developed site and an adverse impact on Mr West’s family.

The Chair thanked Mr West for his presentation.

The Chair invited Councillor Elizabeth Dennis-Harburg to address the Committee as Member Advocate.

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis-Harburg thanked the chair for the opportunity to address the committee as Member Advocate in respect of application 20/01692/FPH including:

·                This property had been increased in size significantly since its original build;

·                The negative impact of extension and expansion of 6 Cubitt Close had caused significant distress and harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents;

·                The report noted that officers were unable to visit the site due to COVID restrictions;

·                Assertions made in the report were doubtful if not made on the basis of a site assessment or up to date inspection;

·                The application would lead to more overlooking of the neighbouring property;

·                The house concerned was overdeveloped and was noticeably larger than surrounding properties and therefore arguably out of character with the surrounding area;

·                The additional build would address the green space on the property and it was not prudent environmentally to allow reduction of the grass area or the building of a potentially energy inefficient conservatory;

·                This call-in is not a result of a dispute between neighbours but because of the harm caused by disproportionate and continual expansion of the property in question;

·                Noise nuisance was an issue which should be addressed by conditions if the committee was minded to approve the application.

The Chair thanked Councillor Elizabeth Dennis-Harburg for her presentation.

The following Members asked questions and took part in the debate:

·                Councillor Daniel Allen;

·                Councillor Sam Collins;

·                Councillor Ian Mantle;

·                Councillor Mike Hughson;

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised:

·                The photographs submitted were taken by the applicant not long after the submission of the application;

·                The Senior Planning Officer had been to the site on a number of occasions and had seen how the existing house had been extended towards the boundary and considering the orientation of 7 Sterling Close;

·                The proposed Conservatory would be less visible than the side extension which is currently in position;

In response to questions the Development & Conservation Manager advised:

·                The issues of design, layout, overdevelopment and prominence were subjective matters upon which the Committee could rely if they wished to come to a judgement contrary to Officer’s recommendations;

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed that the application be refused. Councillor Mike Hughson seconded.

Upon the vote it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/01692/FPH be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons below:

The proposed extensions by reason of their size, siting, and design cumulatively with previous enlargements to the dwelling would fail to be subordinate to the host dwelling and would be harmful to its character and appearance and that of the locality.  The proposal would be contrary to the provision of Saved Policies 28 and 57 of the North Herts District Local Plan 1996, Policies D1 and D2 of the Emerging Local Plan and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.