DELEGATED OFFICER REPORT 

——————————————————————————————————————
	Site Address:	52 Bacon Lane, Hayling Island, PO11 0DW			
	Proposal:          Proposed two storey front extension and first floor over existing balcony, demolition of garage and replacement two storey side extension.  Front dormer and other alterations to windows, change in materials with first floor cladding.	
	Application Type:    Full Planning Permission	
	Application No:	APP/24/00932 	Expiry Date:	03/03/2025	
	Applicant:	Mr Lee Jackson			
	Agent:	Mr Davey 
Principal Design Ltd Ltd	Case Officer:	Selina Donophy	
	Ward:	Hayling West			

	Recommendation: GRANT PERMISSION	
——————————————————————————————————————

1	Site Description 

This application site comprises a two storey, detached dwellinghouse located on the north side of  Bacon Lane, Hayling Island. This property has a pitched roof with a flat roof, double garage to the side . The property is set back from the road with a driveway to the front - to the front elevation is a balcony at first floor level. The area is residential in character. 

2	Planning History 

None relevant 	

3	Proposal 

Proposed two storey front extension and first floor over existing balcony, demolition of garage and replacement two storey side extension.  Front dormer and other alterations to windows, change in materials with first floor cladding.

	Officer comment: Amended plans have been received during the course of the applicaiton. 	

4	Policy Considerations 
	
	National Planning Policy Framework
	Havant Borough Council Borough Design Guide SPD December 2011        
	Havant Borough Council Parking SPD July 2016

Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) March 2011
CS16	(High Quality Design)	
DM13	(Car and Cycle Parking on Residential Development)	

Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) July 2014
AL1	(Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development)	
AL2	(Urban Area Boundaries and Undeveloped Gaps between Settlements)	

	Listed Building Grade: Not applicable.
	Conservation Area: Not applicable.

5	Statutory and Non Statutory Consultations 
	
Councillor Jonathan Hulls	
No comment received 	

Councillor Paul Gray	
No comment received 	

Councillor Wilf Forrow	
No comment received 	

6	Community Involvement 

	This application was publicised in accordance with the Council's Code of Practice for Publicity of Planning Applications approved at minute 207/6/92 (as amended), as a result of which the following publicity was undertaken:

	Number of neighbour notification letters sent: 9

	Number of site notices: Not applicable.

	Statutory advertisement: Not applicable.

	Number of representations received: 2 

Comment	Officer Comment	
3 objections received 		
I am objecting to the addition of a second floor large dorma to the rear elevation which contains 2 windows as this will look directly over my garden therefore affect my level of privacy. I have had to endure months of noise as the developer started some work long before they submitted any plans. Thank you	Comments noted. The proposal has since been revised and the dormers have now been removed from the proposal. 	
In response to the planning application at 52 Bacon Lane.

Works already undertaken without submitting planning permission have greatly altered the original house and we are pleased to see plans submitted for approval and the opportunity for neighbours to comment.

We have several objections.

Objection 1
The new vertical window to the staircase area.

This newly installed window is a very long vertical window on the side of the house, it is considerably different in size and shape to the window it replaced and looks directly into our garden, affording views into the rear rooms of our house. Given its size and shape this window will allow anyone walking across the landing area and descending/ascending the stairs a long uninterrupted view, not as is often the case for stairwell windows, a fleeting glance as the person descends past an upstairs window. 

If passed as currently is, it will have a detrimental impact on the use of our amenity and the right to enjoy it without interference. 

I imagine this side facing window is for light to the staircase, easily achieved by using level 5 opaque glass and lessening the impact on our privacy. Many side facing, overlooking windows, are required to have this and modern designs offer interest and individuality. 

If level 5 opaque glass was to be required as part of granting permission, we would have no objection to the window.

Objection 2
The proposed knocking down of the garage and building a two storey side extension and loft room.

The plans have no details of footings or height of the finished extension. The plan for the loft room seems to show a finished head height of 2m in the centre of the room. This is misleading as the scale provided on this page shows it drawn at about 1.5m. 

The building, as it is currently has around 1.3m of space above the first floor windows to the ridge of the roof. This would in no way be enough for uprated floor joists, 2m head height, roof timbers, insulation and tiles etc.

No mention is made of raising the ridge height anywhere in the application. This is further clouded by the fact that the roof pitch of the original house drawing is, I believe, not reflective of the reality of the actual roof pitch. It's more like 35 degrees at present, not the 45 degrees drawn.

Adding 1.2+m to the roof height, to allow for the loft room, would make the house much taller, not in keeping with neighbouring properties. It would reduce light and appear as a large block overlooking and overshadowing our garden and those of our neighbours.

Although not impacting on us directly the windows to the rear of this extension would look out over other gardens considerably affecting their privacy. These windows and the front facing ones would have a tangential view to our garden further affecting our privacy and impacting our quality of life.

I do note that the windows in this extension nearest to our property appear to be bathrooms and dressing rooms so perhaps level 5 opaque glass could be specified here too negating many of our concerns of privacy loss.

Objection 3
The front porch and tall window extension.

This section of the plan has two side windows in the first floor bedroom. One window will again look directly over our garden and give views into the windows of our property. These new side facing windows will again reduce our privacy and impact negatively on our use of amenity. 

Notes
Plans misleading or lacking details 

Assuming the ridge is not being raised, the loft room will not fit. 

Further to this, were the rear dormer to finish as shown on the elevation plan, the roof lines and flat roof shown on this plan do not show the ugly double ridge and valley that the plan as drawn would create. This mix of different ridges and roof lines when viewed from our garden and those of our neighbours will look quite ugly and the added height, overbearing.

The plan shows 5 double bedrooms, several toilets and bathrooms yet no drainage plan is provided.

10 adults and their cars may need to be accommodated but no plan is given as to how this might be provided within the plot space. 

To conclude, 

We object to the side facing windows looking towards our property as they breach our right to privacy. We acknowledge that the use of level 5 opaque glass in all these windows may be an acceptable mitigation.

We object to the size and height of the side extension and a loft room above this will over shadow our garden and be out of keeping with other neighbouring homes.

Further to this are the concerns that to achieve the loft room, the roof height will indeed need to be raised. If passed it would make the house out of keeping with it's immediate neighbours and only add to the sense of being overshadowed and overlooked.

As the development has been going on for several months prior to appearing on the council website, work has already made significant material and structural changes to the building. However, we have to object to our privacy loss.

Case officer comment :further comment received following receipt of amended plans 

 I write to object to the revised plans for 52 Bacon lane and wish to make the following points. The objections we made in relation to the privacy issues regarding the side windows of the previous plan still stand for the reasons given in that objection.  We welcome the revised height and shape of the garage extension and acknowledge the difference this will make to the light and visual presence of the proposed building. We also note on revised drawing F the inclusion of obscure glass to mitigate the view from the rear of the garage extension, first floor, for our immediate neighbours left and the first floor side windows on the opposite side of 52 Bacon lane.  There is no such change however in the plans for any of the first floor side windows directly overlooking our house and gardens. So further to our previous objections regarding loss of privacy, should the revised plan be passed with these new changes, then it could amount to discrimination as only the side windows facing us would not have had their glass changed and therefore only our privacy would be affected. Why is our privacy less important than any other? As the use of obscured glass in side windows has a long standing precedent when directly overlooking neighbours, I feel that to allow the long window by the stairs and the first floor side windows in the front bedroom to go through planning as clear glass, would as stated in our previous objection, definitely remove our right to privacy. I ask the question what is the long window for? If necessary for light for the use of the stairs then obscured glass, as stated in our previous objection, would provide this without removing our privacy. If the long window is for a nice view then that would be into our home and garden as we go about our daily lives.  The window gives uninterrupted views of our veggie patch, washing line and entertaining space that could be enjoyed whilst walking from the upstairs landing and most of the way down the stairs, not some fleeting glimpse as you descend past an upstairs window.  In addition to this, the smaller side facing window of the first floor front bedroom within the new frontage projection, will have uninterrupted views into the rest of our garden and also all the rooms at the back of our home. In short, almost total removal of the privacy we have previously enjoyed. The developer has indicated the use of obscured glass in this new version of the plans and so is obviously open to its use to mitigate their neighbours objections, except that is in our case? I respectfully ask that the planning department uphold our right to privacy just as much as those of the other adjoining properties.  It should also be remembered that this development began without any planning permission and that the long window was created without consent. The fact that it is now there does not diminish the fact that it wasn't. We feel that we are offering mitigation for the window to remain by suggesting the glass be replaced by level 5 obscured glass and not objecting to the actual window itself, which obviously would have been our position if the appropriate planning process had been followed from the outset. 	Comments noted. Please see 'Planning Considerations' section of the report. 	
Objects - The effect on daylight reduction, from the extended building above the newly proposed double garage and predominantly the height which must reach or extend past the ridge of the main house . Therefore, quality of life will be affected by being overlooked and overshadowed by the brick wall and four windows facing north , causing loss of privacy with adjacent views onto the rear of our property. 

This six bedroom property, with new extension has small bungalows either side therefore does not suit the lane . The proposed building and rooms could potentially house ten persons and accommodate six vehicles . The road is called Bacon Lane and therefore not suitable for mass vehicles , with limited access towards the end of the lane connecting the very busy Staunton Avenue .

Finally , the de-valuation of our property. 

This will cause a detrimental impact to us and surrounding properties. 	Comments noted . Please see 'Planning Considerations' section of the report.

Please note that property valuation is not  a material planning consideration. 	

7	Planning Considerations 

7.1	Having regard to the relevant policies of the development plan it is considered that the main issues arising from this application are:

	(i)	Principle of development
(ii)	Appropriateness of design and impact on the character of the area
(iii)	Effect on neighbouring properties
(iv)	Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)
(v)    Parking

	(i)	Principle of development 

7.2	The application site is located within the defined urban area, therefore development is considered acceptable in principle subject to development management criteria.This application has been amended following its initial submission and the dormers proposed have now been removed from this proposal due to design and neighbour amenity concerns and the first floor side extension has been set back behind the existing front facade in order to soften the appearance of the proposed extension and a front dormer has been added. 

	(ii)	Appropriateness of design and impact on the character of the area

7.3	This application comprises a first floor side extension as well as a two storey front extension and first floor front extension over the existing balcony. A front elevation dormer is also proposed as well as alterations to fenestration. The proposed first floor side extension would be sited above the existing double garage . This would have an eaves height level with the existing property with a ridge height slightly dropped down from the main ridge. This space would create a master bedroom with an ensuite and dressing room. There would be a  dormer window to the front which would serve this room and there would also be two rear elevation windows which would be obscure glazed. One large garage door would replace the existing two garage doors to the front elevation.  

7.4     To the front elevation at first floor level the property would be extended forward, level with the existing ground floor front elevation. Forward of this would be a double storey extension which would have a width of approximately 2.4 metres and eaves height level with the main roof eaves; with a dropped down and hipped back roof . These extensions would create an enlarged bedroom at first floor and a porch area at ground floor level. 

7.5     Other alterations include alterations to windows and materials . To the side (east) elevation at first floor level there is currently a cloakroom, bathroom and bedroom window and these windows would be replaced with 3 bathroom windows . To the west side elevation there is currently a bedroom window at first floor level and a lounge window at ground floor level. These would be replaced with a double height window serving the stairwell . Bi-fold doors would wrap around the north west corner of the building at ground floor level. Proposed materials include composite cladding to the first floor and render to the ground floor level. 

7.6    The proposed alterations to the property are considered to be subservient additions to the host dwelling in both scale and design. The set back of the first floor side extension is deemed to give the appearance of a later addition and acts to break up the two sections of the building. The proposed dormer would sit within the front facade and would retain a level of continuity in design terms with the proposed two storey front extension . The proposed first floor extension would bring the building line forward, however the property is set back within the plot and the distance from the road would mean the changes are not dominant within the streetscene. It is noted that there is an existing variation in property styles and sizes within the streetscene  and this proposal would not be out of keeping with the existing pattern of development . In addition the proposed cladding is not considered to be harmful within the streetscene noting the set back of the property from the  road, making it less prominent. 

7.7    The design and appearance of the proposal is deemed appropriate in context to the main building and is therefore considered to be acceptable, meeting the requirements of Policy CS16 of the HBLP (Core strategy).  It is considered that the scheme would not result in an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the locality.

	(iii)	Effect on neighbouring properties

7.8     To the east of the application site is no 1 Fernhurst Close- this property is a bungalow  . The proposed first floor front extension would project forward by an additional 2.5 metres approximately however this would not project forward of the front elevation of no 1 . Whilst there would be some level of increased building bulk, the roof would be hipped away from no 1 and no harmful overshadowing impact has been identified. The proposed two storey extension would be set away from the shared boundary .	The first floor windows on this side would be obscure glazed. 

7.9    To the   west of the site is no 61 Staunton Avenue . The proposed side extension would add an additional element of building bulk at the end of the rear garden of no 61 however there would be a 20 metre distance retained between this and the rear elevation of no 61. The proposed extension would only fill a section of the rear boundary as the garden of no 61 is fairly wide and whilst it is noted that in the morning there may be some increase in shadow cast, this would not impact habitable rooms and is not deemed to result in substantial harm . A double storey height window is also proposed to this side elevation which would have views back towards no 61. It is understood this has already been constructed. Whilst the window would offer views back towards no 61, the existing overlooking is of note. There was an existing bedroom window on this side elevation previously as well as a lounge window at ground floor, there would be approximatly 50% less glass fenestration with the new window . This would also serve a stairwell which is generally considered to offer more fleeting views than a room such as a bedroom. For these reasons the impact of the proposed window is considered to be acceptable. 

7.10  To the north west of the application site are nos 59 and 57  Staunton Avenue . These properties border the side boundary of the application site . The first floor rear windows proposed would be obscure glazed and top opening which would reduce any harmful overlooking back towards the rear elevations and gardens of these properties .

7.11   To the rear (north) of the application site is no 2 Fernhurst Close. As stated above the rear first floor windows would be obscure glazed and no harmful impact has been identified to this property to the rear.  

7.12	Consequently, it is considered that the proposal will not appear overbearing or lead to a loss of light, outlook or privacy and would have limited and acceptable impact on the properties immediately adjacent to the application site and the properties opposite or to the rear, meeting the requirements of Policy CS16 of the HBLP (Core Strategy).  

	(iv)	Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)

7.13	It is noted that this householder application is exempt from the requirements relating to Biodiversity Net Gain.

         (v)     Parking 

7.14   There would be enough space to park 3 cars as required on the driveway, the proposal would accord with the Council's Parking SPD and policy DM13 of the HBLP (Core Strategy).

8	Conclusion 

8.1	The proposed development is acceptable in principle, is appropriate in terms of design and its impact on the character of the area, and would have a limited and acceptable impact on the neighbouring properties. On this basis it is recommended for approval.

9	RECOMMENDATION:

That the Head of Place be authorised to GRANT PERMISSION for application APP/24/00932 

subject to the following conditions

1	The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.	
		
2	The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

03 Apr 2025  	REV A  	PROPOSED ROOF  
03 Apr 2025  	REV B  	PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR  
03 Apr 2025  	REV D  	PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR  
03 Apr 2025  	REV F  	PROPOSED ELEVATIONS  
14 Nov 2024  	   LOCATION PLAN  

Reason: - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development.	
		
3	The external materials used shall be as indicated on the submitted forms and hereby approved plans, or shall match, in type, colour and texture, those of the existing building so far as practicable.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and having due regard to policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.