Agenda item

Planning Application 19/02363HOU - The Ridings, Middle Ridge Lane, Corton Denham


Application Proposal:  Demolition of existing part side and part rear extension, demolition of existing garage, erection of new two storey side extension and single storey rear and side extensions


The Case Officer (Service Delivery) presented the application as detailed in the agenda.  He explained that the site was located within a rural setting with open fields surrounding the area and that the dwellings on Middle Ridge Lane were predominately built of reconstituted stone.  The site was not within an area of special designation or within the immediate setting of any listed buildings.  Members were shown the existing layout of the property including areas where the development would take place and advised that timber cladding would be used on the exterior of the development which would be left untreated to weather naturally.  The design of the two-storey extension would incorporate a hip roof to mitigate any loss of sunlight to the neighbours to the north.


The Case Officer (Service Delivery) outlined the key considerations which were residential amenity and visual amenity.  He advised that concerns had been raised by neighbouring properties to the north and south regarding the use of timber cladding and loss of light.  The use of timber cladding was supported by the Parish Council and was quite typical in modern development as it showed a clear divide between the existing property and new development and left to weather naturally was considered to be acceptable.  A study had been conducted to show that the hours where the sunlight would be blocked was late in the day and very limited to the winter months. 


The Committee was addressed by an objector who raised concerns in the relation to the following:


·         The north wall of the proposed development would be 4 metres from the neighbouring property which would worsen the existing tunnel affect between the two properties.

·         Concerns over loss of light and shadowing and possible damage to floating slab foundations.

·         Building of the extension and future maintenance may have to occur from the neighbouring property.

·         The front west facing lounge window of the adjoining property would also be affected in addition to the window located on the south.

·         Hedgerow reduction at The Ridings had not made any difference to the overshadowing on Broadfields side wall.

·         Concerns over the close proximity of the extension to the boundary fence due to the steep gradient height increase there would be clear views from the rear extension into the neighbouring garden.

·         Proposed extension overly wide and 60% of original house width residential amenity would be significantly affected by overshadowing, loss of light, significant dominance and loss of privacy.


Ward Member, Councillor William Wallace questioned whether there were any legal measurements in terms of overlooking that should be complied with when considering a planning application.


In response, the Specialist – Development Management confirmed that there were no planning laws in relation to loss of light or overbearing.  He encouraged members to look at the relationship between the proposed development and the neighbouring property and consider what they feel would be overlooked and whether it would be demonstrably harmful to living standards.

Ward Member, Councillor Hayward Burt commented that he had concerns with overlooking, overshadowing, which had been proved in the officer’s report and loss of privacy.  For these reasons he was unable to support the application. 


It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:


·         Overshadowing

·         Overlooking and loss of privacy


A vote was taken on the proposal and there were 10 votes in favour, 1 against and 0 abstentions.


It was agreed that the final wording to refuse the application would be agreed by the planning officer in conjunction with the ward member.



That Planning Application No. 19/02363HOU be REFUSED contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reason:


The proposal, by reason of its size and design will result in loss of light, overlooking and a loss of privacy for the neighbouring property known as ‘Broadfields’, to the detriment of living standards. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy EQ2 of the SSDC Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.


(Voting: 10 in favour, 1 against)


Supporting documents: