Clear side window at The Conifers, School Lane, Old Somerby

What was proposed

The application sought removal of the obscure-glazing condition from a side window in an approved rear extension.

“Description of the proposals 2.1 Section 73 application for the removal of Condition 4 (Obscure glazing) following planning permission S25/0588. The proposal seeks to remove the obscure glazing window condition from the side elevation.”

Officer report

The site

The site contains a detached one-and-a-half-storey dwelling surrounded by homes, with open countryside to the north.

“Description of Site 1.1 The existing property is a detached one-and-a-half-storey dwelling, situated on School Lane, Old Somerby. The application site is surrounded by dwellings of varying scales and designs, with open countryside to the north.”

Officer report

Earlier permission and condition

The condition followed earlier permission S25/0588 and was imposed to prevent overlooking of the neighbouring property.

“Impact on neighbourhood amenity 6.6.1 The proposal would see the removal of an obscure glazing window condition to the side elevation of the approved rear extension, facing Shamrock, School Lane.”

“The rear extension sits approximately 4.9 metres from the shared boundary fence between the site and neighbouring dwelling. The boundary features a fence of 1.8 metres in height, and shrubbery on the neighbouring dwelling side. The Local Planning Authority have previously considered the proposed development under application ref: S25/0588.”

Officer report

What the speaker said

The public speaker raised fairness concerns, described changes to the neighbour’s tree and fence, and said the garden could not be seen.

Members’ debate

Members discussed whether the window was clear or obscure, a possible enforcement referral, and views from inside the extension showing the neighbours’ seating area.

“The Principle Development Management Planner clarified the photograph shown by the Applicant was of a clear glass window. The Committee were notified the condition was currently in breach due to the window being clear glass, rather than obscure.”

“The Chairman highlighted that she had attended the Site Visit and stood on the floor inside the built extension. It was possible to view the seating area of the neighbours through the space provided for the side window. She explained that the garden room had been added to the bungalow on the ground floor and extended along the neighbour’s garden.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee proposed, seconded and agreed to authorise refusal, with one councillor not participating in the debate or vote.

“It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:”

“(Councillor Penny Milnes did not participate in the debate or vote on this application).”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was refused because no material change justified removing the condition and the proposal would adversely affect neighbouring amenity.

“(1) It is the Local Planning Authority’s assessment that there has been no material change in circumstances since the previous assessment of the application, such that removal of the condition has not been justified. As such, the proposed application would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring amenity contrary to Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan.”

Minutes