Agenda item

Construction of a first floor rear garden room extension with balcony and external staircase

Saxby House, Station Road, Corbridge, NE45 5AY

The Development Management Area Manager (West) introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and advised that there were no updates following publication of the report.

Mrs. M. Williams, the applicant, spoke in support of the application and made the following comments:-

·        At the previous meeting Members had agreed that there were very special circumstances in relation to their situation.  The house needed to be made more resilient to flooding to provide space upstairs for them to live and ensure that they were not displaced, as had happened in the last 2 floods.

·        Officers were still recommending refusal.  A request to meet and discuss proposals on site and explain why it could not be accommodated elsewhere had been refused.

·        The reference in paragraph 7.14 which stated that an alternative location for the extension would not be considered by the applicant was untrue.  The planner’s suggestion that it would be better accommodated at the other side of the house, would be less visible from the approach and no problems with overlooking, if there were no windows.  Photographs had been sent to show the impact on neighbours.  This would have resulted in the access looking directly into the neighbour’s kitchen windows and would have been a violation of their privacy.  They had spoken to their neighbours who had confirmed that they would have objected.  The neighbours had no objections to the current proposal, neither did the parish council.

·        Two different designs had been sent to the officers, but they had not liked either.  The design which matched the rest of the property’s traditional stone exterior and character had been submitted.

·        Conditions for one way glass and installation of blinds to reduce light pollution would be accepted.

·        They disagreed with the content of the officer’s email which suggested that from Members comments at the last meeting, they would not want to see any openings on the end elevation.  This email had inferred that they could build along the lines proposed if the design was right i.e. no windows on the field side.  Plans had been drawn but had looked ugly and closed in and had not been a good design.

·        The committee were reminded of the reason for the extension, namely that the applicants wished to live in it if they flooded.  Flooding had a profound effect on mental health, increased anxiety and clinical depression.  Themselves and their neighbours had suffered from despair and misery with 30% of the community suffering from PTSD after the second flood in 2015.  From experience they would need to live in the extension for a year at a time as it had taken that long to reinstate the house on the previous occasions.

·        The back of our house faced east, and they lost the sun at midday.  An extension on the north gable with no windows would be very dark, especially in winter when light was limited and would not be helpful to their stress and mental health trying to sort the house.  Good daylight in housing had been shown to play a large part in overall attitude, satisfaction and the well-being of occupants.

·        They did not understand why they were not allowed windows when the house across the field had an extension with two windows.  It was also prominent on the approach to the village.

·        Floor plans showed how the internal layout would work and brought their scheme in line with the nearby house which had been raised to protect the occupants against flooding.  They were effectively doing the same thing to allow themselves enough room to remain living on the first floor with a temporary kitchen in a former bathroom which had the plumbing provision needed.

·        The proposed building would only require small changes to remain living in the house with a small living area (the extension) and some outdoor space and access.

·        They had attempted to provide a compromise that would also work for them; however, it was clear that it would not be supported by officers.  Members were asked if they could support the application given the circumstances and that they had previously agreed there were very special circumstances.

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

·        Officers had not felt it necessary to hold a meeting on site as they had visited the site previously and had sufficient information.  They had offered to meet virtually using Teams.

·        Officers had suggested that removal of the windows from the most prominent side elevation might help Members make a decision, not that officers would support the application if the windows had been removed.  This was due to the impact of the windows both looking out and inwards.

·        The Development Management Area Manager (West) was not familiar with the property on the other side of the field and did not have the details with her as it had only been raised at the meeting.  The impact of the windows on this application needed to be assessed.

·        Officers had recommended that the application be refused due to the forms, scale and massing of the proposed extension, and not specifically the inclusion of windows.  Out of the alternative designs put forward by the applicant, officers had suggested that the smaller more traditional windows would be better in this more traditional property.  Members had discussed at the previous meeting the impact of large openings and the impact of light in the evening which would make the extension more prominent and intrusive.

·        Whilst there had been considerable debate as to whether there were very special circumstances when this application had been considered in December, the application had been deferred and the matter had to be considered afresh.  As the property had been significantly extended previously, the proposals could not be classed as a limited extension in the Green Belt and therefore the development would be inappropriate.  A second reason for refusal related to the design.  Anything could warrant very special circumstances if the information provided was sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.  Although there had been no vote, from the discussion at the last meeting, Members appeared to support there being very special circumstances if other matters were resolved satisfactorily.  A decision on this application that there were very special circumstances would not set a precedent on other applications as each was considered on its own merits.  Officers had concluded that the information did not constitute very special circumstances which outweighed the harm to the Green Belt, although Members could arrive at a different conclusion.

Councillor Horncastle proposed that the application be granted, contrary to the officer’s recommendation that the application be refused, and that the wording of conditions be delegated authority to the Director of Planning with the agreement of the Chair.  This was seconded by Councillor Riddle.  The reasons for this were that the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant in terms of the impact to them from earlier flooding and the extension would enable the applicants to live in the property would constitute very special circumstances which outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.

Councillor Dale stated that she had not been at the meeting when this application had been discussed previously and did not feel that she could participate in the decision.  The Solicitor stated that she had been provided with a copy of the report, had the opportunity to listen to the presentation and ask questions and could vote.  However, if she was uncomfortable then she would be able to abstain.

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

FOR: 7; AGAINST: 4; ABSTENTION: 1.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reason and that the wording of conditions to be delegated authority to the Director of Planning with the agreement of the Chair.