Agenda item

Proposed garage conversion to holiday let with 1 bedroom, bathroom, living area and kitchen. 

Riding Dene House, Riding Dene, Mickley, Stocksfield, Northumberland, NE43 7BL.

The Planning Officer introduced the report with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and advised that there were no updates following publication of the report.

Mr. A. Lamb, who lived next door to the proposed development, spoke in objection to the application.  He raised the following points:-

·         The western wall of the garage had 2 large windows which formed the boundary wall to his rear garden.  There had been very limited visible activity during the 5 years they had lived there.  He had only seen the gym used once and current activity, noise and disruption was minimal.

·         He and his wife worked from home and spent most of their free time in their home and garden due to his wife’s disability.

·         They disagreed with many of the issues raised in the residential amenity section of the officer’s report, particularly that there would not be any significant or unacceptable level of noise or activity that would affect their amenity.  Also, that the garage/gym was described as a residential building.

·         They expected that there would be a considerable increase in noise and activity from the proposals that would have a negative and an unacceptable impact on privacy noise and activity of their home, garden and working environment.  Any noise would be audible to them and activity visible at nights when lights were on inside, despite frosted glass.

·         Their rights to a private life and home would not be respected by the proposal and that their protections under the Huma Rights Act would be interfered with.

·         He personally would not object to the proposal if the two windows were removed and the garage wall rerendered, however this suggestion had been ignored.

·         Many other neighbours in the vicinity had also objected with very little support.

·         There would be an unavoidable increase in noise and activity from cars and people accessing the property which would have a negative effect on the amenity of people living close to the proposed site.

·         Parking proposals appeared unworkable with cars needing to be shuffled to allow visitors to the holiday let to enter and exit.  It was likely they would need to reverse out of the gates and turn around in the street.

·         Residents of the bungalows at the rear had objected as they felt their privacy and safety would be jeopardised by use of a gate in the hedge and they did not want movements by strangers so close to their home.

·         The proposal was almost solely to the financial benefit of the applicants and to the detriment of everyone who lived close by.  This was undemocratic and they could not understand why it had been recommended for approval in view of the opposition to it.

·         A suggestion that the development might in future be used as a ‘granny flat’ or as an independent living space for growing children would have a greater impact on their amenity if used as a permanent residence and were reassured regarding use of the building only as a holiday let.

·         Different neighbours had been given different accounts regarding the change of use of the building.

·         There had been little concern for the impact on the health and mental wellbeing of neighbours who were elderly and disabled.

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

·         The concerns regarding the existing windows and overlooking were understood, however they were already in position.  It had been suggested that a higher standard of obscured glazing be installed than the level currently in, e.g. Pilkington level 3 or above.

·         The applicant could make many internal alterations to the building and parking spaces which would not require planning permission.

·         Officers had recommended approval and a higher level of obscured glazing for the opening rather than removal of the window openings as in officers view the mitigation measures would lead to an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbours and it was not necessary to block the windows up.

·         The proposed use was different to existing use but would be similar in intensity as what could be carried out under permitted development.

·         If members did not think the officers proposals for obscured glazing were acceptable, they could request that the windows be removed and blocked up as the room was served by other openings.  In that case it was suggested that the decision be made that they were minded to grant the application, subject to receipt of amended plans, rather than the addition of a condition.

·         The proposed use would be restricted to holiday accommodation.

·         The degree of obscurity was measured by a scale with levels ranging from Pilkington level 1 to 5.  The wording of the condition could be amended to require double glazing and increase the obscurity to a higher level.

·         The gates opened into the curtilage of the property and there would be sufficient space to maneuver within the site and park in front of the building.  A condition required that the 4 parking spaces be retained.

·         The distance between openings on the neighbour’s dwelling and the proposed holiday let was acceptable.

·         Condition no 6 required that measures remain in place during the lifetime of the development and could be enforced.  The applicants had been requested to install a fire escape on one of the other elevations.

·         The proposed core strategy was not yet adopted and therefore carried limited weight with officers being unable to insist on the installation of solar panels on an existing building at the present time as it was more difficult to retrofit energy measures compared to installation on a new build.  This requirement would be reviewed when the status of the plan changed.

·         The application was for change of use from garage to holiday accommodation.

·         Officers were confident that more onerous conditions regarding removal of the window suggested by Councilllors could be defended if the applicant appealed.  Also, if the applicant declined to agree to the amended conditions, the application would need to come back to committee.

Councillor Cessford sought advice regarding the best way to word a proposal to approve the application with removal of the window to the living area of the holiday let with clarification being provided by the Solicitor and Development Management Area Manager (West).  This was seconded by Councillor Dale who requested that the window to the garage be double glazed to reduce impact of noise as well as being obscured with frosted glass.

It was moved and seconded that:

‘The Committee were MINDED TO GRANT permission for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report subject to the amendment of condition no. 6 to only refer to the garage window on the western elevation and require it to be double glazed and glazed in Pilkington level 3 or above and that delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning to confirm the wording of condition no. 6 and receipt and approval of amended plans to show the removal of the window opening from the proposed living area.’

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

FOR: 10; AGAINST: 2; ABSTENTION: 1.

RESOLVED that the Committee were MINDED TO GRANT permission for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report subject to the amendment of condition no. 6 to only refer to the garage window on the western elevation and require it to be double glazed and glazed in Pilkington level 3 or above and that delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning to confirm the wording of condition no. 6 and receipt and approval of amended plans to show the removal of the window opening from the proposed living area.