Neighbours living near a property considered 'too close' to other houses have been advised to 'use blinds' if they are worried. The application, for a two-and-a-half storey house in a plot behind an existing house was up at the planning committee for a second time after previously being deferred amid confusion over the location of a window in the neighbour’s study.
Objections had been lodged by people living in the vicinity of the plot. One neighbour ,claimed at the earlier committee that officers had failed to consider the outlook from a study that had been built some years ago above their garage.
Other objections related to the loss of mature trees as part of the Sefton development and amid disputes over a driveway including in the plans that was claimed to encroach on neighbour's land. After the application was deferred for planning officers to reconsider the plans, a report produced ahead of the meeting acknowledged that the study was indeed a habitable room and the planned development would be over 9m closer than planning recommendations to the study’s window, Liverpool Echo reports.
The report stated that screening would be provided between the house and the development and the neighbours could install blinds to the window to maintain privacy, adding that because the room had previously been created under permitted development rights, had the house been built first the neighbours would have been required to screen the window.
At a planning committee meeting held this week, planning officer Neil Mackie said that errors had also been made in the report provided to the committee as it had not included the loss of trees described as offering a “screen” between the study and the new development. Mr Mackie said the development would also come too close in parts of the ground floor to another neighbouring property and that the driveway as submitted would encroach on neighbour’s land, which meant that a notice had to be served on the owners.
While this had not been carried out correctly when the application first went to committee in March, Mr Mackie said the applicant had later served the correct notice on the owner and also modified the designs of the driveway and gate. Concluding the development would be “acceptable” members of the committee were recommended to approve the application.
