Agenda item

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of overlooking neighbouring properties, loss of amenity and the height/scale of the proposal. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 18 March 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that three letters of objection had been received and he detailed the main issues of the proposal.  A previous application for a two storey annex had been refused in December 2011, but there were no amenity issues in relation to this application as the proposal was for a single storey building. 

            Mr. C. Minton spoke against the application as he felt that his property which was behind the site would be overlooked and overcrowded and that his privacy would be invaded.  He added that the building works would disrupt resident’s lives and would impact on the health of his wife and neighbours.      

            Councillor A.I. Dunbar proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He felt that the height of the proposal would be above the height of the garage on the site and would overlook neighbouring properties.  He asked whether there was any intention for the applicant to sell it as a separate building if planning permission was granted. 

            Councillor R. Lloyd concurred that the proposal was higher than the garage currently in place and would be higher than the bungalow to the rear of the site.  He sought clarification on the comment in paragraph 7.10 that it was anticipated that the main dwelling would be relied upon for the kitchen facilities which would ensure the proposal remained ancillary to the main dwelling.  He supported refusal of the application. 

            Councillor D. Butler queried why the annex was required as it was reported in paragraph 7.04 that the existing garage could be used for accommodation ancillary to the main dwelling without the need for planning permission.  Councillor W. Mullin felt that once the annex was constructed it would be turned into a dwelling and queried what the ramifications of council tax collection would be.  Councillor Peers referred to the refusal of the previous application on the basis that it was tantamount to the erection of a new dwelling: he felt that same applied in this case.  He asked why the application was to demolish the garage and rebuild an annex when it could have been built as an extension to the original dwelling.  He also supported refusal of the application. 

            Councillor H.G. Roberts reminded Members that the application before them had to be considered and that annexes were permitted as long as they were not self-contained.  He felt that the application was in accordance with planning policy. 

            In response to a question from Councillor R.B. Jones, the officer said that the previous decision had been delegated and was for a two storey annex with the bedroom windows overlooking adjacent properties.  This proposal was four metres in height with no accommodation in the roof space and so would not have the same element of overlooking as the previous application.  He referred to recent appeal decisions on annexes where the inspector had reported that because of the level of connection between the new building and the main dwelling, the new building was classed as an annexe.  Councillor Jones said that the previous application had been refused as it overlooked neighbouring properties and was a new dwelling.  He felt that these reasons still applied on this application and that for consistency it should be refused. 

            The officer said that the proposal had been designed as annex accommodation and not as a separate dwelling and that conditions would tie it to the original dwelling.  The Principal Solicitor said that the proposal was considered ancillary to 18 Vaughan Way and that a requirement to pay council tax would be an indication of a separate dwelling.  If that was the case, enforcement action could be taken because of a breach of conditions. 

            In summing up, Councillor Dunbar said that the proposal was not linked to the dwelling and was tandem development.  He reiterated that refusal should be on the grounds of overlooking neighbouring properties, loss of amenity, and the height/size of the proposal. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application against officer recommendation was CARRIED.       

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of overlooking neighbouring properties, loss of amenity and the height/scale of the proposal.