Agenda item

The Committee considered application P/HOU/2022/01307 to square off front of property, erect rear extension, with addition of new first floor accommodation to converted roof space with new dormer to side elevation at  54 Sandy Lane, Upton, Poole, BH16 5LX

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were, taking into account the policies against which this application was being assessed.

 

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of what was being proposed and how it would be achieved, showing the development’s relationship with other adjacent residential development and what this entailed. It was pointed out that, the architecture and design of dwellings in the area varied considerably so this proposal would not be seen to be out of keeping. The characteristics and topography of the site was shown and views from the property and around it was shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

 

In summary, the officer’s assessment considered the acceptability of the proposal in relation to the Development Plan and this formed the basis of the recommendation being made.

 

One member of the public – a neighbour - had objected on the grounds that the rear gable end window would overlook their property to the rear of the site,
causing a loss of privacy. Moreover, it was claimed that work had already started on the extension.

Clive Bailey – who was the neighbour who owned No 28 – explained that despite the offer to obscure glaze one of the windows, a much similar view could be had from the adjacent one, given the orientation of the room. On that basis, privacy would still be compromised by virtue of overlooking. He was of the view that the issue had not been adequately addressed and asked for the application to be refused.

 

Formal consultation had seen Lytchett Minster and Upton Town Council object to the application - in supporting the neighbour’s objection on overlooking. This view was shared by Lytchett Matravers and Upton Ward
Councillors Bill Pipe and Alex Brenton.

Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one could be addressed by the provisions of the application. Whilst the application was being progressed, in response to concerns raised, the applicant had agreed that the western element of the rear first floor window could be obscure glazed to reduce the potential for overlooking. On that basis, officers considered the application to be reasonable.

 

The opportunity was then given for members to ask questions of the

presentation and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of aspects so

as to have a better understanding in coming to a decision.

 

Some important points raised were and which they considered still required clarification were :-

·        what opportunity was there to obscure glaze both windows and was this a practical option. This option was put by Councillor Worth as a solution

·        what the distances were between neighbouring properties

·        what alternative options were there to modify the proposal so overlooking was not an issue.

 

Officers addressed the questions raised – and what clarification was needed - providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers, which the Committee understood to be, and saw, as generally acceptable. In particular the suggestion that both windows could be obscure glazed was considered to be an unreasonable condition, as it would result in poor amenity for future occupants. Officers confirmed that, should the application be refused, the applicant still had some means of achieving first floor accommodation as permitted development.

 

From debate, the Committee considered that given it would be unreasonable to ask for both rear facing windows to be obscured, they had little option other than to consider the application to be unacceptable – on the grounds of overlooking and compromise of privacy and which could not be readily overcome. On that basis, Members considered they could not support the application as it stood.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an

understanding of all this entailed; having taken into account the officer’s report

and presentation; the written representations; and what they had heard at the

meeting, in being proposed by Councillor John Worth and seconded by

Councillor David Tooke, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed – unanimously - to refuse permission, based on the loss of privacy from overlooking, which could not readily be addressed.

 

Resolved

That application P/HOU/2022/01307 be refused.

 

Reason for Decision

On the grounds of the loss of privacy from overlooking.