Agenda item

Erect first floor extension to provide 1 No. unit of residential accommodation.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. The application was to erect a first-floor extension to provide 1 No. unit of residential accommodation. The roof was designed to protect the amenity of the window. There would be no direct overlooking, and the second room was intended to be office store, rather than a bedroom. The application was in a town centre location, with a variety of buildings. The roof was designed so that light could reach the window and there would be no blocking of the window and light of the window would not be significantly impacted as it was East facing.

Public Participation

Mr Kendle lived at 5 Icen Mews, the back-wall of the proposed development was the back-wall of his courtyard garden, and this wall was less than 12 metres from the living room of his house. He explained the overbearing nature of the proposal, and he referenced that the officers report stated that the development would not be overbearing due to the courtyard already experiencing an enclosed character and the development only amounted to an additional 60cm of height of the party-wall. He explained that the officers report underplayed the effect of the development. The boundary wall at the end of his garden was already the tallest structure enclosing the space, and crucially, it was the only boundary visible directly from his living room. This made it the most prominent feature from both inside his home and garden.

The proposal sought to significantly increase the height of that wall, with a sloping roof rising further behind it. That change significantly worsened the sense of enclosure and visual dominance of the structure, contrary to the protections offered by Policy 25 of the North Dorset Local Plan, which required development to safeguard the amenity of existing residents, including protection from overbearing structures and loss of outlook. This development only represents an additional 60cms of height.

The officer’s report included that the proposal would only amount to a roughly 60cm increase in height, or a 14% increase in the height of the current party-wall. He informed that this claim was inaccurate and disingenuous for two reasons: The report stated the additional height of the party-wall is 60cms but the sloping roof, rises above the party-wall by a further 140cms and that the highest point was 100cms back from the party-wall. A 200cm increase was significantly higher than a 60cm one that the report drew your attention to.

The architectural drawings on which the 60cm figure was based were inaccurate because they: Stipulated that the floor-space between the current ground-floor and the new first-floor was 14cms when at a minimum, taking into account joists and fire-protection, it would need to be at least 29cms. The drawings also indicated that the current parapet wall is 429cms high, but he measured it, and it was only 402cms at its highest point and 390cms at its lowest. Therefore, allowing for a realistic depth of floor-space, and for the actual height of the parapet wall, the party-wall would need to be 114cms higher than the parapet wall currently is at its lowest point, and, when including the sloping roof, the development would be 254cms higher than the current wall. So rather than the 14% increase in the height suggested in the officer’s report, this development actually amounted to a 63.5% increase in height. He concluded that it would significantly overshadow and overbear the property and the inaccuracy in the drawings suggested that the architectural drawings could not be trusted and therefore, any development would be based upon must be objected.

Ms Pacitti explained that she was the co-owner of 10A High East Street, situated directly to the west of 10 High East Street. Her property featured a single window in the upstairs rear room, which served as the exclusive source of external light for that space. The proposed construction would significantly diminish the amount of light entering the room. Although the height of the build had been reduced, it would negatively affect the light levels, and the impact would be more pronounced in winter exacerbating the concern. During winter months, light availability was already limited, necessitating an increase in natural light rather than a decrease. This development would result in an exceedingly gloomy environment, requiring artificial lighting even during daytime hours.

The proposed construction posed a severe infringement on her established right to light, which had been recognized for over two decades. The flat roof adjacent to her property raised significant concerns, as it could lead to damp issues due to the accumulation of rainwater and debris. She requested clarification regarding the method of joining the flat roof to her structure and the direction of water runoff. Under the current proposals, there appeared to be no provision for runoff management, leading to the potential trapping of water in the channel between the front and rear elevations. She expressed concern regarding several vents for her bathroom and kitchen located on the wall designated for construction. There were legitimate worries about the possibility of these outlets becoming obstructed. The current submission did not adequately address how these concerns would be mitigated, and she remained sceptical that a party wall agreement would provide a solution. The proposed construction would infringe upon the privacy of her rear balcony, as it would be directly overlooked by the new build, which featured windows facing her property.

The area was already densely built and lacked privacy; this development would exacerbate that issue. The new placement of the extractor fan—now positioned lower between 9 High East Street and 10A High East Street, and at the same height as her window—raised additional concerns. The odour from the extractor could become confined between the front and rear elevations, significantly impacting the upstairs room. The existing odour report was insufficient, as it did not consider the new circumstances in which odour could be channelled and trapped in the corridor formed between the adjacent buildings. She raised reservations regarding the implications of ongoing maintenance for the property, particularly given that it was located in a conservation area. The proposed development would restrict access to the rear and side of her building, thereby hindering the ability to perform routine repairs to the roof, walls, and balcony. This could have detrimental effects on her property, and the revised plans fail to address these concerns.

Members questions and comments

• Cllr Jespersen commented that she was not confident that the layout of the development was the best use of space in terms of living conditions. She questioned whether the committee could add conditions that prevents future occupiers from using the area designated as an office as a bedroom. She queried the amenities of the flat itself and whether residents had any access to outside space for drying washing, putting out their bins and a place to park their bike. She commented about the odour in small spaces and that odours can settle. She raised concerns with the flat roof, concerns with flue, smaller lobby, loss of light to the living room of 10 a. The development was overbearing on the courtyard garden of number 10 a, and no place for domestic living.
• Cllr Fry raised concerns over the noise and smell and the flat roof being very hard to maintain and could leak.  There would be a loss of privacy to the area and potential damage to surrounding buildings.
• Cllr Pothecary expressed concerns that there were too many problems that would need to be put right by condition. She would have preferred to see method statement put in with the documents. She was most concerned about the flue, in line with balcony in 10 A sitting out there being on the same level, would be appalling. If approved the development would be half built before we realised all sorts of issues.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representations; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to REFUSE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Pothecary, and seconded by Cllr Jones.

Decision: To refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below and the appendix.

Reasons for refusals:

The proposal would lead to a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of 10A High East Street due to inadequate daylight to the living space of the adjacent property due to the proximity height and design of the proposed development, contrary to Policy ENV16 of the West Dorset and Weymouth Local Plan.

The proposal would lead to a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of 5 Icen Mews due to overbearing and overshadowing of the garden area of the adjacent property due to the proximity height and design of the proposed development, contrary to Policy ENV16 of the West Dorset and Weymouth Local Plan.

The proposal due to its size and layout would fail to make sufficient provision for bin stores, recycling facilities, drying areas, cycle parking, mobility scooter storage and private amenity/garden space and associated storage and composting facilities, which would adversely impact on the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed residential unit, contrary to policy ENV.11 and ENV16 of the West Dorset and Weymouth Local Plan.