6
The Committee received report ES/2820 which related to application DC/25/3064/FUL. The application sought planning permission for the erection of a first-floor rear extension and removal of tree. The application was at Planning Committee North, following the referral panel, because the comments received from the Town Council and Ward Members were contrary to the recommendation of approval by officers.
The Senior Planner presented the application, outlining the site location and its context off Hartington Main Road and Champion Road, a private road which gave access. Plans and aerial images were shown to demonstrate the relationship with the neighbouring properties, particularly, numbers 8 and number 16.
The existing and proposed plans and elevations were detailed, highlighting a rear extension with a first-floor addition above part of the dwelling, alongside a central stairwell. The proposal also included the removal of a tree, which would be controlled by condition. Members were advised that a previous scheme had been refused and dismissed on appeal due to unacceptable impact on a neighbouring property, however the current proposal had been amended to reduce its scale, alter the roof form, and reposition windows to minimise overlooking.
The impact on neighbouring amenity was acknowledged, particularly in relation to the close proximity to a hallway window at number 8 and potential effects on outlook and light. While some impact was identified, particularly from the west elevation, officers considered that it would not be sufficient to warrant refusal. The north elevation was noted as not giving rise to overlooking concerns, and changes to the front and east elevations were minimal.
Members were shown photographs, interior plans and 3D images, including images submitted by neighbours illustrating the perceived impacts on their property and garden amenity. Sun path diagrams provided by neighbours were also referenced.
The application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report.
The Chair invited the objector to speak.
The objector requested refusal of the application due to unacceptable harm to residential amenity, contrary to Policy SCLP 11.2.
She noted that the officer’s report acknowledged impacts including loss of light, increased overbearing effect, and reduced outlook, but argued that these were significant. The garden was her only amenity space and due to their chronic illness, the space where she spent the majority of her outdoor time.
She raised concerns that the proposed first-floor extension would block sunlight from the south, and that reliance on removal of a bay tree was flawed as an intertwined pear tree would remain. Additional concern was expressed about significant loss of light to the landing window, which she said to be omitted from plans and not fully considered under Policy SCLP 11.2.
The objector noted the previous appeal decision and that the amended plans were said to address concerns, however they related to a different property (No. 16), whereas her current concerns related to No. 8. She also questioned the accuracy of submitted information and asked the Committee to exercise caution and refuse the application.
The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to speak.
The agent described the proposal as a modest extension over an existing flat roof, reduced in scale from an earlier, larger scheme with gable ends that raised concerns about overlooking and amenity. The revised design lowered the eaves and roof scale, creating more of an attic space than a full first floor, with a hipped roof to reduce the impact on the neighbouring property.
He stated that overlooking and sunlight impacts had been carefully assessed and modelled, and that removal of trees in the corner (which currently had a greater impact) would help offset any loss of light. Amendments had also been made to improve the neighbours’ outlook.
The staircase had been positioned within a turret to allow sufficient headroom. The agent also offered to enlarge the neighbour’s landing window to mitigate light loss, noting that some light would still be retained.
Councillor Ashdown asked about the paperwork that was submitted from the applicant regarding the light assessment and what time of the day the images were taken. The applicant’s agent replied that it had been carried out firstly in house and then by an external company. They had been taken at different times and compared to the British Standards.
The applicant’s agent confirmed to Councillor Pitchers that both trees would be removed.
There were no further questions for the applicant’s agent.
The Chair invited the Ward Member to speak.
Councillor Graham expressed concerns following a site visit that the proposal would significantly harm the resident’s amenity. The increased height and scale would create an overbearing impact, reducing light and outlook to the garden, her only usable outdoor space, and the upstairs landing. This was considered particularly important given the resident’s long-term health condition.
Although the landing was not a main habitable room, it contained the only window, and the proposal would result in loss of light and outlook. Taken together, these impacts were considered to materially diminish the resident’s living conditions.
She also noted that a previous scheme had been refused at appeal, that the current impacts were significant, and that there were inaccuracies in the application which the resident had to address at her own expense, engaging planning consultants.
Councillor Graham concluded it was contrary to SCLP11.2 and should be refused. If the Committee was minded to go along with officer’s recommendation, then it deserved a site visit as only by being in the garden could the impact of the extension be appreciated.
The Chair commented that she had visited the area to view the size of the garden and the proximity of the window. Councillor Graham said that it was necessary to be inside the garden rather than looking from the street.
The Chair invited any points of clarification. The Planning Manager noted that personal circumstances may be a material impact, but the key consideration was the enjoyment of the garden. He suggested that the Committee tempered that and focused their consideration on the development of the garden area in particular and the impact on the landing window.
Councillor Hammond referred to the applicant’s offer to enlarge the window and whether that could be considered. The Planning Manager replied that it wasn’t something that could be secured, therefore not possible to say they could accept the application on the basis that could happen.
Councillor Ceresa returned to the picture of the landing and questioned whether the applicant would need to get a party wall agreement. The Senior Planner confirmed they would.
The Planning Manager confirmed that, while the landing window carried less weight than a main habitable room, it was still an important part of the home and should not be disregarded.
Councillor Ashdown asked if there was anything to prevent the future planting of trees/shrubs. The Senior Planner replied there would be a condition to prevent anything higher than 2 metres post the trees being removed.
Councillor Pictures asked to review the picture of the garden. It was clarified that this was from the alleyway to the south of the property.
A further photo was reshown with the position of the extension annotated on it, it was noted this wasn’t provided by the planning officers.
The Committee moved to debate.
Councillor Pitchers said it was a difficult decision but expressed concern that removal of the tree would worsen the impact, leaving only brick walls and fences and reducing light to the garden. He indicated he was inclined to refuse the application, as he did not support replacing the tree with brickwork.
Councillor Ashton noted that, while the previous appeal and officer advice suggested that the revised scheme may overcome earlier concerns, there remained grounds for refusal. He proposed that the application be refused due to the impact on the amenity of the property at number 8.
Councillor Hammond considered the impact on the back garden more significant than on the landing, describing the proposal as overdevelopment of the garden. He stated that fear of appeal should not influence the decision and seconded Councillor Ashton’s motion to refuse.
Councillor Ashdown noted that light and shadow diagrams showed impacts similar to those already caused by an existing shed. However, his main concern remained the loss of amenity, particularly the effect of the proposed wall in restricting light. He had not yet reached a final decision.
Councillor Plummer said she felt like it would give less light, despite what the diagrams showed.
Councillor Ashdown asked if it would be appropriate to have a site visit.
The Chair noted that was one of the options for the Committee.
Councillor Ashton stated there was a motion to refuse that had been seconded and this should be considered.
The Planning Manager advised the Committee to review policy SCLP11.2 when formulating their reason for refusal.
On the proposal of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Hammond it was unanimously
RESOLVED that
The application be REFUSED on the grounds that it was contrary to the following:
SCLP 11.2 – Residential Amenity
E - resulting physical relationship with other properties
C – access to daylight and sunlight
A – privacy/overlooking.
Councillor Ashdown commented that he liked the design of the new property but it was not in the right location.