Agenda item

Proposed construction of detached standalone garden room to rear garden area.

Hepscott Hall, Side Lane, Hepscott, Morpeth Northumberland

NE61 6LT

Proposed construction of detached standalone garden room to rear garden area.

Hepscott Hall, Side Lane, Hepscott, Morpeth Northumberland

NE61 6LT

R Campbell, Senior Planning Officer provided an introduction to the report with the aid of a power point presentation.  There were no updates.

A Elliott-Robertson addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       She lived at Hepscott Hall Cottage and had been devastated by the notification that her neighbour was to build a garden room on the site which was only 26 inches away from her dining room and small patio.

·       The development would be the size of a double garage and was the entire width of the patio and would be 848mm above the boundary wall with a window which would overlook her property.

·       The close proximity and nature of the development would have a profound detrimental impact and invade her privacy.

·       Friends and family of the applicant would congregate at the garden room which would be on the site where a shed now stood and as it would be in such close proximity to her property she would be able to hear every conversation word for word and it would become a real noise issue day and night. 

·       The proposed development would be modern and ugly and would not be in keeping with the Grade II listed building.

·       If the proposal had been for the garden room to have been erected on the large grass area then she would have had no objection, but the location was only 26 inches from her boundary wall.

Councillor D Cowens addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of Hepscott Parish Council.  It was accepted that the proposed building design and appearance agreed with the Listed Monuments National Planning Guidance for the Grade II listed monument and the applicant’s huge improvement to the south side of the listed building was acknowledged.  However the Parish Council supported the very near neighbour’s objection to the unfortunate siting of the development so near to their property and the intrusive height which would spoil the vista and be detrimental to their amenity. It would be of benefit if the proposed development could be moved behind another, very nearby existing screening wall, or if the base could be lowered Italian sunken garden style, so that it would be hidden by the party wall.

S McNicoll, applicant, addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       Despite the objections that had been raised, the building did not overlook the garden next door from the side window it would in fact look into the fence.

·       The building would be set two metres away from the boundary.

·       The objections from the neighbour and Parish Council were not based on what had been submitted and were not based on what would actually be done on the site.

·       The building would be part of a domestic garden, which already had a pool area, and objections on the grounds of noise had no merit as the use of the area would not be changing in any way.

·       The application was supported by the planning and conservation officers and it was very frustrating that the application was only at Committee as the reasons given for objections by the Parish Council were based on an objection from a neighbour and not on what had been submitted for approval, and following a great deal of work undertaken on the listed building to improve it.

·       The measurements stated in the objections were not in the documentation and there had been no agreement to re-site the building as it was a pool room and was to be used as such and therefore would not be moved to another part of the garden.

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

·       The distance between the proposed garden room and the boundary ranged from 2m – 4m due to the angle and the distance from Hepscott Hall Cottage to the garden room would be 6m.

·       The window was at a high level and not at eye level height.  There had been no concerns regarding privacy from the window and therefore it had not been considered necessary for frosted glass to be provided.  The area was heavily screened and a condition could be added regarding boundary maintenance to prevent any overlooking if Members so wished.

·       It could not be confirmed how high the existing hedge was.

Councillor Wearmouth proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report and with an additional condition, the wording of which to be delegated to the Director of Planning, to  ensure the height of the boundary screening to be retained no less than 1.8m to protect amenity between Hepscott Hall and Hepscott Hall Cottage, which was seconded by Councillor Sanderson.  A vote was taken and it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report with the additional condition, the wording of which to be delegated to the Director of Planning, to  ensure the height of the boundary screening to be retained no less than 1.8m to protect amenity between Hepscott Hall and Hepscott Hall Cottage.

Councillor Jackson left the meeting at this point.