Agenda item

14/00895/HHFUL - 80 Ledbury Road, Netherton, Peterborough, PE3 9PJ


The planning application was for a two storey side extension and first floor rear extension at 80 Ledbury Road, Netherton.


The main considerations were:

·         The impact of the proposal on the character of the area

·         The impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings

·         Objections


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


The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         A previous scheme on the site had been approved in 2013, however the proceeding development was not in line with the approval.

·         An error had been identified within the current on site construction as the roof trusses were of the incorrect size. This was in the process of being corrected.

·         Issues had been raised in relation to the neighbouring garage and water pooling as a result of the extension. This was not a planning matter, but a private matter between parties.

·         The method for drainage prior to previous garage extension was unclear.

·         The overhanging nature of the eves, on the neighbour’s property was similarly a private matter that could not be resolved by the Committee.

·         Further objections had been received in the update report from Stewart Jackson MP, Councillor Arculus and a local resident.


Councillor Maqbool and Councillor Fitzgerald, Ward Councillors, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         A lot of time had been spent on this application, with reservations from neighbours and local residents associations.

·         Normal protocol for planning permission had not been followed, as such this application was retrospective.

·         Individuals living nearby were keen to have the development completed as soon as possible, if permission was granted.

·         The proposal was considered to be oversized.

·         The applicant had disregarded planning law.

·         The construction site was an eyesore.

·         The Committee had no power to force the applicant to finish work, even if permission was granted, and this could be a problem.

·         It was questioned whether the Committee could approve an application which did not meet building control regulations.

·         The Ward Councillors suggested that, once finished, the development would not be a problem but were concerned that work would not be completed or would not be completed in line with approved plans.


George Oommen and Bindu George addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Oommen and Ms George had moved into the property neighbouring the development site in late 2013.

·         The previous joint garage had been knocked down to build an extension.

·         The original plan indicated a gap between the two properties, however when built the two were joined together.

·         While the applicant had offered to fix the drainage problem on the garage roof by installing a pipe this was not considered sufficient.

·         Mr Oommen could not believe that the Council could not assist to rectify this problem, as it was the Council who permitted the application.

·         Mr Oommen and Ms George were not aware of how the drainage from the garage was previously addressed, having only moved to the property recently.

·         The Committee were urged to reject the application and maintain the gap between residences. 


Phil Branston, Branston Associates, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The issues surrounding this development had been long running. After negotiation with planning officers an agreement had now been reached.

·         The original plan was not adhered to however this was an issue that needed to be resolved. The applicant was keen to finish the development, which was shown by the work completed within the past week.

·         Building Regulations had been approved on 8 August.

·         The situation with the neighbouring property was unfortunate and would be resolved legally.

·         Remedial work was being undertaken to the roof where incorrect trusses had been used.

·         Mr Branston assured the Committee that the development would be built as per the submitted plans.


The Head of Development and Construction clarified that the developments adherence  to Building Regulations was a separate legal process and could not be a ground for refusal. Issues relating to drainage on the neighbours property were a private law matter and could not be taken into account by members when determining the application, however the neighbour had been advised to seek specialist property advice. The fact the application was retrospective was not a reason for refusal. The Head of Development and Construction was satisfied with the design submitted.


The Committee discussed the application and several members commented that the size and massing of the proposal was significant. It was considered that in relation to the large plot size, the proposal would be acceptable on balance.


A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried eight voting in favour and two voting against.


RESOLVED: (eight voted in favour, two voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the reports.


Reasons for the decision


Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically, the proposal would not unacceptably harm the character of the area or the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings; in accordance with policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (DPD) and policies PP2 and PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies (DPD) 2012.


Supporting documents: