Agenda item

Members will be aware that an application was refused by the Committee for the raised patio and proposed privacy screens a few months ago. An enforcement notice has subsequently been served and the Council is in receipt of a planning appeal and enforcement appeal, with the owner appealing ground (a) only, that planning permission should be granted for what has been built.

This application follows a previously approved planning permission permitted in 2021. This application proposes the same form of development except for a number of fenestration changes which the officer ran through. The application site does not include the raised patio area, this is subject to the on-going appeals.

With regards to the report, there is an error at paragraph 4.1.1 as Batchworth Parish Council are referred to as having no objection to the scheme. This is incorrect, they object to the application, specifically in respect of the amended first floor rear windows and state that they should be reverted to the approved form, which includes the removal of the proposed Juliet balcony serving bedroom 2.

With regard to the most recent approved scheme, under reference 21/2425/FUL (the extant scheme), the differences between that approved scheme and the current application are in relation to fenestration changes only and are as follows:

• The first floor window in the front elevation of the house, above the garage has been slightly realigned.
• The previously approved door on the ground floor rear has been altered to a clear glazed, fixed-shut window.

·        Ground floor rear glazing altered with the additional of two further full-length glazed windows forming bi-fold doors

·        First floor rear glazing amended over garage to include a full length window, the addition of a Juliet balcony to an existing approved window with alterations to its design.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(B) a member of the public spoke on behalf of the neighbours of the applicant, against the application, emphasising the primary issues on injury to privacy and the potential use of the flat roof as a balcony in future.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(A) a District Councillor spoke against the application emphasising concerns over the possibility for the garage utility, currently a non-habitable space, to be converted into a habitable space such as a den, by the applicant in future, which would not require a planning permission.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(A) a Parish Councillor spoke on behalf of Batchworth Community Council against the application reiterating that they have objected to numerous issues which have been submitted by the applicant since 2021, and will continue to object to the remaining unresolved points.

The Planning Officer outlined the key issues:

Ø  Installation of the balustrade and the potential to use the flat roof at first floor level.

·        With regards to the flat roof; there is a condition attached to the report that does restrict the use. If it is found that the flat roof is being used for amenity purposes, the Council has the ability to issue a breach of condition notice, no right of appeal. If Members are concerned regarding the removal of the Juliet balustrade, a condition can be added for a requirement for it to remain in situ.

Ø  Ground floor flank wall should be obscurely glazed.

·        There is currently hedging in this area, and based on the officers observations from a site visit, no overlooking is considered to result.

Ø  Concern about the paved area immediately to the rear of the ground floor:

·        This is subject to the ongoing appeals regarding the raised patio; the enforcement notice is twofold; it requires either the complete removal of the raised patio, or it requires the owner to revert back to a previous planning permission that includes steps down at that point to a lower raised patio, which would be a possibility for the owner to build, subject to how the appeals progresses. On that basis the Council would not be able to wait for the outcome of appeals.

Members of the Committee raised the following questions and points:

The window that is serving the garage could be obscurely glazed, but it should also be top open only. The Officer clarified that the window could be conditioned to be either fixed and obscurely glazed, or clear glazed with top open only. Both option would protect the privacy of the neighbours if required by members.

Q. What would happen if something happened to the existing hedge, e. g. died or cut down, to protect privacy?

A. The hedgerow would not be protected by the TPO legislation. It would be open to the owner of that part of the boundary to erect a fence, but it would be restricted to a 2 meter enclosure without planning permission.

Q. Which boundary is owned by the owner of the property?

A. As this is not a planning matter, officers are not able to provide this information.

Q. Is it the Juliet balcony going to be flush with the wall or will it be possible to step out onto the balcony?

A. Juliet balconies are usually right up against the wall; it will not be possible to step out onto the balcony.

Q. Would it be possible to put a condition on the flat roof to turn it into a pitched roof?

A. It would be difficult due to where the fenestration currently is; officers would not be able to request this under the current application.

It was pointed out that the height of the Juliet balcony railing is 0.9 meters, but building regulations state that it has to be 1.1 meters. The Planning Officer confirmed that the railing does have to be 1.1 meters high to pass building regulations, and if the condition is added for the Juliet balcony, the requirement should be 1.1 meters high.

Councillor Steve Drury moved the recommendation as set out in the officer report, seconded by Councillor Matthew Bedford and with the following two conditions to be added:

1.     The obscure glazing on the window on the flank wall should go ahead,

2.     The Juliet balcony with a raised height of the railing to be added to bedroom 2;

The Chair clarified to the Committee the motion with the amendment that the obscurely glazed window and the Juliet balcony shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

The Chair and the Planning Officer summarised that the reason these conditions become required is to safeguard privacy of the neighbours.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 8 For, 3 Against and 0 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That the PART RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED and has effect from the date on which the development was carried out, and is subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report, with the following two additional conditions:

Within 4 months from the date of the decision, the existing ground floor window within the south eastern flank elevation serving the garage as shown on drawing number 1360/P/2B, shall be replaced and installed with purpose made obscure glazing and shall either be fixed shut or top level opening only at 1.7m above the floor level of the room in which the window is installed. The window once replaced shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential property at No.9 Wolsey Road in accordance with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).

Within 4 months from the date of the decision, the Juliet balconies to the rear elevation at first floor level serving the bedrooms labelled as 1, 2 and 4 as shown on drawing number 1360/P/2B shall be installed to a minimum height of 1.1 metres. Once installed the Juliet balconies shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).