Agenda item

Variation of conditions 2 (materials) and 3 (approved plans) pursuant to planning permission 18/00515/FUL in order to install a flat roof rather than a pitched roof 

41A Southward, Seaton Sluice, Whitley Bay, Northumberland, NE26 4DQ

Variation of conditions 2 (materials) and 3 (approved plans) pursuant to planning permission 18/00515/FUL in order to install flat roof rather than a pitched roof.

          41A Southward, Seaton Sluice, Whitley Bay, Northumberland, NE26 4DQ

It was confirmed that Members had no questions on the site visit videos which had been circulated.  G Horsman, Principal Planning officer introduced the application to the Committee with the aid of a power point presentation.

Late representations had been received from the applicant stating that approval had been granted for the extension.  In terms of the building regulations, the Building Regulation Officer had not any concerns about the proposal.  Mr Horsman advised that Building Regulations and planning permission were two separate matters.

Photos had been supplied of seven other two storey extensions with flat roofs in the Seaton Sluice area, however, addresses of these properties had not been supplied and officers had been unable to check the planning history as the extensions appeared to have been erected a number of years ago when certain 2 storey extensions did not require planning permission from the Local Authority and policy requirements were different.

The applicant also referred to a proposal to site regarding carbon capture plants on the roof of the extension.  However, that did not form part of the proposal.  There were other ways in which Co2 reduction could be achieved.

Mr Horsman advised that the officer recommendation was as per the report for refusal, however amended wording was now proposed in respect of the refusal reasons.  The refusal reasons should read:

Condition 1

“The two-storey rear extension and proposed external staircase, by virtue of their siting, scale, mass and design do not respect or complement the style and character of the existing dwelling and constitute incongruous additions to the street scene, resulting in significant harm to the visual amenities of the  locality. This would be contrary to Policies DC1 and DC28 of the Blyth Valley District Local Development Framework:  Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (2007), Policy ENV 2 of the Blyth Valley Core Strategy and the NPPF”.

Condition 2

“The two-storey rear extension by virtue of its siting, scale, mass and height results in a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property at 39a Southward in terms of an unacceptable loss of daylight/sunlight, visual outlook, structural proximity and overbearing presence and the proposed external staircase would result in significant harms to the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at 41 Southward by virtue of increased  overlooking of their rear elevation and  rear garden.  This would be contrary to Policies DC1 and DC28 of the Blyth Valley District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (2007) and the NPPF”.

Mr Alan Burt, applicant, was in attendance and spoke in support of the application:

• He explained that when the design of the extension was changed, he had asked the Building Inspector if it was acceptable.  The Building Inspector advised Mr Burt that he would be happy to sign off the work as long as the neighbour did not complain
• Mr Burt spoke to the neighbour at 39a who had no objections
• Mr Burt carried out the extension unaware that new plans had to be submitted
• Throughout that build there had been no mention of a deviation from the plan, however Government Regulations required that a responsible person be informed if there was a deviation and if necessary, a stop work order would be issued.  To date, he had not received such an order, even though the flat roof was clearly documented in the report and no objection to the extension
• They had paid for guidance from NCC’s Building Inspector and expected the right guidance and advice
• The Planning Officer referred to DC28 in relation to planning extensions.  There were already two in village and Mr Burt was happy to supply the addresses
• He understood the concerns of the Planning Officer and he was prepared to reduce the size of the extension to the side elevation back to 2 metres, not seek permission for the fire escape as long as they could keep the door on the side;  replace with a Juliette balcony and retain the flat roof on the extension, as there were other examples in the village
• The advice they had received, had caused immense stress and financial burden over the last year.  He asked the Committee if they would consider a compromise on the extension to reduce the impact on the neighbouring property and to install obscure glazing to avoid any overlooking of 41
• He hoped the changes were acceptable to the Committee.

(Councillor P Scott left the meeting at 5.48 pm)

In response to questions from Members the following information was provided:-

• If planning permission was refused, planning enforcement process would have to take place.  This would include consideration being given as to  how to remedy the situation, which could include demolition in whole or part , or an option to modify as per the approved plans from 2018.  However, all the matters would need to be looked at
• The suggestions that were made by the applicant, could be progressed as a separate new application, however, Mr Horsman was not supportive of the suggestions made by the applicant, as the property was not in a suitable location for a flat roof and even if the projection was reduced it would still be harmful at two storey level and there would still be concern with regard to the external staircase and the visual impact on 39a
• In response to the advice given by the Building Inspector, it was advised that there was a distinction between the planning process and building regulations.  The Building Control Officer would be concerned only about construction detail not whether the extension was acceptable in terms of its appearance and impact on neighbours.  There was often confusion between planning issues and building regulations
• The most appropriate solution would be to build as to what was approved in 2018.
• The 45 degree rule related to daylight and sunlight and the visual impact
• The drawings for the external staircase had not been submitted originally.  The balcony feature was a Juliette balcony which could not be accessed
• The actual extension projection to the rear was 3.56 which was not a major issue given that the 2018 approval allowed for a 3.5 metre rear projection
• In response to a query regarding possible changes to the application, it was stated that the application could be deferred to allow for further discussion but the changes did not support the concerns raised about the flat roof
• Mr Horsman had tried to make contact with the Building Control Officer and fully understood the issues raised in relation to co-ordination between the teams
• One objection had been received after the planning application was received and the extension had been built.  However, the objection  related to a side extension which did not require planning permission
• Only number 41 had objected to the application
• The Committee was advised that they could consider what had been said by the applicant
• Mr Horsman confirmed that the concerns were the design of the roof; the roof extended above the eaves of the property and the impact on numbers 39a and 41
• As a local authority, there was a view on acceptability and this would not normally be approved, in additional it was a careful approach was required so that undesirable precedents were not set
• The Committee were advised that if the application was deferred, a timescale would need to be discussed with a new set of plans which would be brought back to committee; there was also the option of refusal and the applicant had the option to appeal
• In response to the suggestion of removing the roof and deferring the rest of the application, this was not acceptable in Mr Horsman’s view, it was not an acceptable scheme and not what had been approved originally.  The way forward was to modify the extension so that it was as per the previously approved scheme
• The Solicitor clarified that if a deferment was agreed, there would be no decision

Councillor Flux proposed the motion for a deferral of the application which was seconded by Councillor Daley.  The Solicitor clarified that the motion on the table was for a deferment for further discussion with the applicant to be had by November of this year.  Councillor Flux and Daley confirmed this to be correct.

It was suggested in future that when developments were being inspected, Building Control Officers should report back to planning officers, to prevent issues such as this.

Councillor Ezhilchevlan stated that the position had arisen as a result of the Building Control Officer not having plans when inspecting the property, therefore the Committee was concerned about the Building Inspector’s response and he would therefore be supporting the deferment.   Councillor  Bowman stated that it was up to the applicants to ensure they showed the correct plans to the Building Control Inspector, which did not appear to have been the case.

Upon being put to the vote the results were as follows:-

FOR: 9; AGAINST: 1.

It was therefore:-

RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED until November 2021 to allow further discussion with the applicant.