Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

The Committee received the report of the Assistant Director, Planning.

The application presented had been called in at the request of Councillor Smith for the following reasons:

·      Residents are concerned with the loss of privacy and amenity to nearby properties; and

·      The application raises some unusual and sensitive planning issues due to its location and has attracted a high level of localised public interest.

The planning application sought permission for the retention of an elevated playhouse around an oak tree, which is covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The wooden playhouse was made from Redwood and Spruce soft wood and measures an overall height of approximately 4.5m, with a raised platform of approximately 1.8m in height. The raised platform of the playhouse is built around the oak tree, a bridge, a swing set and an enclosed playhouse with a small window.

Rebecca Delaney, Applicant, spoke regarding the application:

“We've received the report from Ms Charles, it's very thorough and addresses all of the objections and concerns that have been raised in respect of the application, the report essentially sets out all of the representations that we would have been making to the committee today. The only thing that we would wish to add is that the Playhouse comes with an annual maintenance contract, what that means is that it will be inspected on an annual basis to ensure that if the tree is growing, that the part of the Playhouse that sits around the tree is altered and adapted to ensure that there's no damage to the tree overtime.

Thank you very much.”

Sophie Cresswell, Objector, spoke regarding the application:

“I strongly object to the gargantuan 4.5 metre tall structure, which is the same height as a double decker bus during warmer weather, it lends itself to frequent use large. Unscreened windows of the observe of the observatory tower face towards and are a similar height to bedroom windows of 17 which has a sunken garden. There is no protection to private amenity space upstairs per photos 2 and 3. You've seen nor in areas of downstairs. I implore a site visit to 17 to prove how intrusive the structure is, to illustrate the relationship between the structure and areas of 17 which viewers can see into and to appreciate how the differing ground levels maximised the impact of the height and bulk of the structure. From the report there are several misleading points to 2.2 fails miserably in its attempt to describe the whole site and so spoke of the structure it slightly larger than the largest variant of articulated lorry, excluding the supporting legs it is wholly at or above the top of the 1.8 metre fence.

The impact from the elevated platform is not confined to the Playhouse, it includes extensive bulk from various deck verandas and a bridge.

Paragraph 9.17 [of the report] claims a degree of overlooking is acceptable and to be expected I questioned this arbitrary measure of acceptable given it has extensive, unobstructed views of several adjacent properties.

9.21 [of the report] refers to planted trees, offering screening along the applicant's boundary, with no description of species planted, duration to maturity or eventual height. a site visit would prove this statement inaccurate.  There is no tree screen it is just immature plants on a frame.  The maturity of the plants to provide screening will take years and won't screen the tower.

9.22 [of the report] objections to noise pollution, this extraordinary statement suggests that noise arising from activity above fence level is of similar volume to noise levels below fence level. I asked the committee the purpose of 1.8 metre fencing around gardens of adjacent properties, surely it's to provide residents with space. This structure severely impacts neighbours' rights to quiet enjoyment of their properties.

The report refers to the vicious reality of any extension, whilst not a home extension, the structure was closer to the house, with the planning officer still be of the same view regarding impact on neighbouring properties, I request that the structure should be refused planning permission.”

Councillor Paul Smith, Ward Councillor, provided the below written statement:

“I would not normally comment, let alone call-in, on small applications in established residential areas like this for the committee to consider. However, as you will have seen this application for retrospective planning permission has notably received 4 objections from neighbouring properties well as the Parish Council.

Whilst many specific valid concerns have been raised by the objectors the main issue I see with this structure is that it acts like a viewing platform where users would stand at a height equal to that of a 6 foot or 1.8m fence on one side significantly impacting the privacy of nearby properties and their gardens. A standard 1.8m garden fence is expected to normally afford a relative degree of privacy which this structure completely invalidates. The normal maximum allowable height of a garden fence is 2m, so neighbours do not even have the option to erect higher fences to regain their privacy. This is clearly not even considering the visual impact of a structure that reaches a maximum height of 4.4m, around 2.5 metres above the fence height.

As you will have seen in 9.21 of the officer’s report it states that “it is considered the proposal would maintain an appropriate level of privacy for an established residential area”. I cannot understand the basis for this view and ask the committee to again look at the plans and site plan. You will also have read in 9.21 that “some trees have been planted along the site boundary by the applicant which will provide some additional screening” but these do not appear to be a condition of the proposed permission. Furthermore, these are newly planted trees which will take many years to establish and grow to a sufficient height and from what I can see from the photos are deciduous trees so will offer limited privacy during the winter months.

As you will have read in some of the objections a similar application, namely 6/2020/2831/HOUSE, on the same development was refused in early 2021 and whilst I note that was closer in proximity to neighbouring properties materially the reasons for refusal would appear very similar to the concerns raised by the objectors in this application.

 I can honestly say that if lived in a neighbouring property to this application I would share very similar concerns regarding loss of privacy given the height of the platform.

I call on this committee to refuse this application and for officers to support the applicant to look at how the existing structure could practically be altered in height to reduce its impact on neighbours’ privacy, and how conditions could be attached to reduce its visual dominance, such as evergreen planting.”

During the discussion Councillors made the following points:

·        Climbing the tree, and the use of a trampoline, would not be considered a material consideration and could result in comparable level of overlooking and noise generation

·        Elevation of land is important and depending on how the elevation varies can have different impacts on people’s view.

·        That it was a private residence where the structure had been built.

·        It was noted that some additional boundary planting had taken place and this may provide a degree of screening in due course.

·        Some members expressed the view that this was simply an application for children’s play equipment and they considered it to be acceptable.

Officers informed the Committee that Tree Officers had confirmed there was no harm to the trees.

Following the discussion, it was proposed by Councillor Musk, and seconded by Councillor Hellyer, to approve the application.

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

That the retrospective planning permission be approved as set out within the report.