Agenda item

Construction of extension on (upper) terrace with the addition of two casement windows to the southern elevation.

Storytime Nursery School, Kersey House, PO5 3HF - 19/00640/HOU

The Planning Officer presented the report for both the planning and listed building applications and drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported that:

Subsequent to the publication of the main Committee report, it is considered the following, further policy analysis will assist:

Given the nature of the host building, being Grade II Listed, due consideration must be given to the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Local Plan.  The application is supported by a Heritage Statement.  Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states: 'When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be)'.

The main report addresses heritage matters.  The proposals consist of a relatively minor extension to an existing first floor, rear external terrace, and two new windows on a side elevation (albeit visible from the neighbouring property and from the public realm).  The report concludes that the relatively minor proposals would not result in an adverse impact upon the host property.  Nor would they have an adverse impact upon the setting of the adjacent listed building (Crescent House), or the Conservation Area.  With no harm identified, the paragraphs following NPPF paragraph 193 are not engaged.

As well as heritage matters, I would also like to address another set of public comments/objections made (in addition to those reported thus far in the main report), which are summarised as:

'No objection in principle to the extension, but concerned about privacy, as well as damage to a glass roof caused by items being dropped from above.  Whilst we recognise that these risks currently exist, we feel their likelihood will be greater due to the reduced area of the patio and increased usage due to the amenity offered by the extension.  We have discussed our concerns with the Applicants, it was felt that a glass partition to head height on the wall at the end of their patio would considerably reduce the risk of items falling, and afford additional privacy without impacting light levels.  Providing such an amendment can be incorporated into the plans we have no objection to the proposed extension'.

The proposed extension on the first floor terrace would reduce the amount of external space on the terrace by about a third.  But otherwise, the functionality and use of the terrace, and its relationship with the neighbouring properties, would I believe remain broadly unchanged and therefore the proposals are not considered to result in a changed or adverse impact upon the neighbouring amenities, for privacy or safety.  As such, I do not consider it reasonable to impose the sort of screen requested by one set of neighbours, as requested above.

In addition, it is considered prudent to further elaborate on the objection and deputation already set out in the main published report, received from Crescent House, to the south of the application site. The report sets out the following concerns:

(a) overdevelopment

(b) loss of privacy (due to previously approved 'patio')

(c) loss of light

(d) proposal would not be in keeping with the character of the Grade II Listed Building

In further detail, their objection states that the patio created some time ago already ruined their privacy, due to over-looking.  Now, they consider there would be a significant loss of light and loss of privacy as a result of the proposal. Whilst they note the application site is 'cheek by jowl' with the neighbouring properties, the neighbour concludes that this addition would further intrude into their privacy and light.

The main concerns have been addressed in the report but I comment further here.  With respect to light, the first floor terrace is modest in scale and would be seen from neighbouring properties against the backdrop of the host building, and so would affect light to a limited degree, in my opinion.  The same applies to the wall to replace the railings on the terrace. These features are 7.5m-8m away from Crescent House, occupied by the objector. This distance, combined with the existing relationship is not considered to result in an adverse impact upon this neighbouring amenity.

With respect to privacy, I have noted the roof terrace would remain, as now, available for use, so privacy would not be changed essentially by the proposals.  The occupier of Western Court also objects to the two windows proposed to be inserted into the application site's southern elevation (gable end).  They consider privacy would be lost, at close quarters (a stated less than 3m distance).  Paragraph 5.18 in the published report notes that the two proposed windows in the first floor southern elevation would overlook the northern elevation of Western Court, the neighbouring property to the south.  By way of further clarification, the eastern of the two proposed windows would indeed face the front corner of Western Court.  The western of the two proposed windows would face south over a flat-roofed forecourt garage at Western Court and, at an angle, look back towards front-facing (west) windows at Western Court.  Given the angle, I do not consider there would be a loss of privacy for either property.

Lastly, there is an objection to loss of property value.  This is not a matter that amounts to a material planning consideration, but due regard is given to the effect of the proposals upon neighbour amenity.

The recommendation remains unchanged.

Members' Questions

In response to questions from members, officers explained that:

·         Officers had not received any comments which the neighbour would like read out at the meeting today.  The only objection received was the initial one with the deputation and request for the application to come to committee.

·         The main concerns of the objector had been addressed in the report.  These were overdevelopment, loss of privacy, loss of light and the proposal not being in character of the listed building.  The supplementary matters list further elaborates on this.  The first floor terrace is modest in scale and would not have a limited degree of impact on the neighbouring properties.  The distances between the proposal and the neighbouring property to the south which is 7.5m-8m away and this was not considered to result in an adverse impact.

·         There are two separate applications is because they are assessed against different pieces of legislation.  The Listed Building Consent was assessed against the Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act which requires different considerations to be had compared to normal planning permission.  

·         The listing description does not make any reference to the railings being an integral feature to the building.  The planning officer said they looked fairly modern but could not confirm whether they were original but would suggest they were a later addition.

Members' Comments

There were no comments.

RESOLVED to grant conditional planning permission as set out in the report.

Storytime Nursery School, Kersey House, PO5 3HF- 19/01858/LBC

The Planning Officer drew attention to the supplementary matters list that report that:

Subsequent to the publication of the main Committee report, it is considered the following, further policy analysis will assist:

Given the nature of the host building, being Grade II Listed, due consideration must be given to the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Local Plan.  The application is supported by a Heritage Statement.  Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states: 'When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be).

The main report addresses heritage matters.  The proposals consist of a relatively minor extension to an existing first floor, rear external terrace, and two new windows on a side elevation (albeit visible from the neighbouring property and from the public realm).  The report concludes that the relatively minor proposals would not result in an adverse impact upon the host, listed property.  With no harm identified, the paragraphs following NPPF paragraph 193 are not engaged.

RESOLVEDto grant conditional listed building consent as set out in the report.