Agenda item

14/01025/HHFUL - 38 Audley Gate, Netherton, Peterborough, PE3 9PG


The planning application was for a two storey side and single storey rear and side extension at 38 Audley Gate, Netherton.


The main considerations were:

·      Design and impact on the streetscene

·      Impact on neighbour amenity

·      Parking


It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.


Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The neighbouring properties were staggered, in relation to the site. So number 36 was set back from number 38.

·         Though the streetscene possessed an open quality, it was considered that this would not be detrimentally impacted, as a gap of 2.4 metres would remain between number 36 and 38.

·         The proposal would not extend past the rear of number 36.

·         Obscure glazing had been proposed on the first floor landing

·         There was sufficient space at the front of the site to allow for three or four vehicles to park. As such, the loss of the garages was not problematic.


Councillor Arculus, Ward Councillor was unable to stay for this item but his representations were read out by the Legal Officer, which in summary were:

·         The Councillor believed that the proposal was too large in scale and would reduce the light able to reach number 36, contrary to planning policy.

·         The scale of the building would be inappropriate within the street scene, which was worth preserving. This was contrary to planning policy.

·         The Councillor encouraged the Committee to reject the application.


Ms Joy Cowland, 36 Audley Gate, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         There would be an impact on traffic. Four cars were currently on the site, this would only become more problematic when building work started.

·         In responding to members questions Mrs Cowland said that the road was enjoyable to live on, with no overlooking and large amount of light. The proposal would result in a loss of light to her property, which would affect the wellbeing or her and her husband

·         Ms Cowland was concerned about what would happen to their fence, which was attached to the building due to be demolished and expressed concern about any damage which may occur during construction.

·         Concern was also expressed regarding the shared drainage system, if the proposal were to be approved.

·         It was believed that the proposal was unnecessarily large.


The Committee discussed whether the proposal represented an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties or resulted in a significant loss of light. It was noted that officers believed the separation distances to be sufficient, however Committee would need to come to a decision on whether they considered this sufficient.


A motion was proposed and seconded that permission be refused, against officer recommendation. The motion was carried six voting in favour, four voting against.


RESOLVED: (six voted in favour, four voted against) that planning permission is REFUSED.


Reasons for the decision


       The proposal would result in a loss of light and would have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties, contrary to policy PP3 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.


Supporting documents: