Construction of single storey rear extension.
The Planning Officer presented the report and drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported that:
Concerns have been raised by the neighbouring resident to the north (No.54 South Road) towards the impact of the proposed extension upon the amount of sunlight/daylight that the rear conservatory would receive. This is considered within the Committee Report, but as a fuller analysis the officers would offer the following comments:
By my estimations, at the December solstice, the sun would cast shadow from the proposed extension to the neighbour's conservatory to the north at no. 54 from approximately 11am. Within approximately two hours, the sun would have moved round to the south-west and so would shine past the proposed extension and on to the neighbour's conservatory (if the sun is still high enough, and if indeed it is actually sunny). The existing boundary fence would cast a reasonably long shadow in the winter, on sunny days.
Important points to consider: sunny days are not so frequent in the winter (one internet source states that 62% of the days in December are overcast). As explained above, the period of shadow cast would be not be very long. Away from the winter solstice, the sun is higher, and so less and less shadow will extend above the garden fence, until none at all in the summer months. By the end of February, until the end of October, the lowest angle of the sun is greater than the angle of the proposed roof, and shadow would not be cast above the boundary fence.
While there would be some shadow cast, it would be on sunny days only, and only in the winter. The neighbours' overall amenity is formed of far more than just sunlight and shadow. Daylight comes from the whole sky and would be very little affected by the proposal - the neighbours' amenity would be preserved. The neighbours' principal outlook is west down their own garden, which is ample (26m long by 9m wide) and verdant - their amenity would be preserved. I note they have venetian blinds and frosted glazing to the south elevation of their conservatory.
I conclude that while the extension is not small in projection (5m), it would nevertheless have a limited and acceptable effect on sunlight, and very limited effect on daylight and outlook.
Officer recommendation unchanged.
Further written deputations were read out as part of the officer presentation from:
· Mr John Bohea - neighbour objecting to the application (including photographs circulated to the committee)
· Mr Steve Cameron - Applicant
Deputations are not included in the minutes but can be viewed on the livestream on the following link https://livestream.com/accounts/14063785/planning-07oct2020/videos/211839879
In response to questions from members, officers explained that:
· Following concerns raised in the neighbour objection on the separation distances, the planning officer had double checked the measurements on the submitted plans. The approximate distance between the two properties is 3m from the proposed extension and neighbours property. In terms of discrepancies on the amount of sunlight, these had been checked on the mapping system and officers had carried about an assessment and were confident in the statements given.
· The right of light is not a material planning consideration.
· Portsmouth City Council does not use the 45 degree code for sunlight deprivation, but employ a judgement based on each application as every site is different.
Members felt it would be very difficult to place any of the concerns raised by the objector on material grounds.
RESOLVED to grant conditional planning permission as set out in the report.