Agenda item

Two storey side and single storey rear extensions (resubmission).

[Hull Road Ward]

Members considered a full application by Mr N Malloy for a two storey side and single storey rear extensions.

Officers provided an update on the application. They reported that a written representation had been received from Cllr Barnes who had called in the original application which was deferred at the meeting on 8 August as Members wished to see a detailed shadow study before making a decision. In his written representation he asked the committee to ensure they had seen the comments on shadowing provided by Ormonde Architects and considered the oral representation to be made by Saad Ali of 71 Yarburgh Way and the written representation of Stephanie Leeman, another neighbour, all of which cast doubt on the shadow reports submitted by the applicant and raised the following concerns:

·        The drawings were not accurate in their massing and appear to present misleading information.

·        Reference to the BRE document “ Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice” part of which discusses the impact of badly planned developments.

·        The reduction of overall depth of the extension does not in fact reduce the loss of light or overshadowing of the main living spaces.

His written representation drew Members attention to the two key aspects of the planning inspectors original refusal to uphold the applicants appeal (i.e. excessive size of the extension and resulting shadowing), and expressed the opinion that the resubmission still did not address these points so asked them not to approve the application.

A copy of a written representation submitted by Duncan Macleman or Ormonde Architects was also circulated to Members. This reiterated the concerns of Dr Ali as well as expressing concern regarding the lack of information on health and safety concerns raised with regard to the construction.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the results of the detailed shadow study, which had been submitted on behalf of the applicant by David Chapman Associates. This included 3D images showing the existing and proposed shadow pattern incorporating the proposed extension in terms of its impact on the closest neighbours. He explained that the most significant overshadowing occurred as the sun passes between the corridor between the two properties. He advised Members that this only provided a snapshot, and was only an aid to decision making. If Members were satisfied that the shadow study illustrated that the degree of overshadowing was satisfactory, they must then consider the issue of over dominance.

Representations were received from Leonardo Ali (on behalf of Dr Saad Ali). He stated that the reduced scale did not alleviate the reasons for the original refusal of the application and that the design and overshadowing caused by the planned extension would still reduce the amenity to his property. Furthermore he stated that the revised design conflicted with National Planning Framework and he raised concerns regarding health and safety during construction of the extension. 

Representations were received from Colin Malloy, the applicant. He advised the Committee that the shadow report had been submitted as requested and had been reviewed by Sharon Jackson, Development Management Assistant who had stated in her report that the extension would not harm the living conditions of nearby neighbours.  He explained that the shadow report confirmed that any additional overshadowing caused by the extension would be confined to early morning and later on in the day it cast a shadow over his own garden. He assured Members that this report was accurate. With regards to concerns raised regarding safety during the construction, he advised Members that scaffolding would be erected on the inside of the new wall on his own land.

Members accepted that the main outstanding issue was that of overshadowing and agreed that the shadow report proved that the main impact of any overshadowing would be to the applicant himself and that the degree of overshadowing to the neighbouring property was not as extreme as Members had feared.

Resolved:           That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Reason:              It was considered that the proposal would not unduly harm the living conditions of nearby neighbours at 71 Yarburgh Way and 6 Hesketh Bank, with particular reference to overdominance and overshadowing, or appear incongruous in the street scene.