Agenda item

14/01759/HHFUL - 8 Engaine, Orton Longueville, Peterborough, PE2 7QA


The planning application was for a garage extension at 8 Engaine, Orton Longueville.


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

·         Other matters


It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report.


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

·         The proposal was for a double garage, 6.6 metres by 6.1 metres and constituted a reduction from initial proposals.

·         The garage would sit 3 metres in from the site boundary.

·         Objections had been received on the grounds of height, impact on the street scene, character of the area, positioning and flooding. Additional concerns had been raised about the lack of permeable hardstanding within the proposal.

·         It was considered that the roof of the garage would be prominent and very visible.

·         The garage would be remote, unlike the surrounding developments.

·         It was considered that the proposals were unacceptably dominant and were visually detrimental.


Paul Sharman, Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         It was suggested that officers had been over zealous in their consideration of the application.

·         The proposal would not have any impact of neighbour amenity.

·         The location of the garage was not too noticeable and it was not considered to be situated on a prominent corner.

·         The size of the garage was normal. It was stated that two garages in the nearby vicinity were of greater height than that proposed, two where the same height and five was smaller.

·         It was believed that the garage related well to the dwelling in its proposed position. It was suggested that moving the garage further into the site by six metres would create an area of unusable land.

·         The height of the garage was required for storage use.

·         Measures would be put in place to ensure that the site drained properly and any flood issues were avoided.


The Committee discussed the application, suggesting that the proposal would not look out of place with the surrounding area. The size of the garage would have an impact on the street scene, but not so much as to be considered unacceptable. Several Committee members stated that moving the garage further into the site would look incongruous and create space not easily usable. It was noted that concerns from residents in relation to flooding should be regarded and appropriate conditions should be imposed if approved.


The Principal Development Management Officer advised that officers had considered the proposal to be too high and isolated from the dwelling, resulting in an appearance very prominent in the street. It was advised that the site had an extant consent for a double garage, measuring 4.8 metres in height, positioned in the top left hand corner of the site. If the Committee were minded to approve the application conditions could be included in relation to drainage, conditions for building materials, and conditions to retain the development as parking and not an independent residential use.


A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, contrary to officer recommendation, subject to conditions relating to permeable materials for hardstanding, building materials and retention of use for parking for the dwelling and not for an independent residential use. The motion was carried by seven votes, one voting against.


RESOLVED: (seven voted in favour, two voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:


1.      Details of  materials for hardstanding and a suitable surface water drainage scheme if material not permeable;

2.      Building materials; and

3.      Retention of use for parking for the dwelling, and not any independent residential use.


Reasons for the decision


While the proposed garage would have an impact on the street scene, this impact would not be unacceptable and would not be to the detriment of the character of the area.


Supporting documents: