Agenda item

The planning application was a retrospective application for a single storey extension to the rear of 40 Farleigh Fields, Orton Wistow.

The main consideration was:

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

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

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

·         An extension had previously existed on the site, which had been 3.5 metres deep. The current retrospective application was for a development of 7.3 metres deep, with a 4.15 metre pitched roof.

·         No objections had been received from neighbours or the Parish Council.

·         The applicant had prior approval for a development in the same location of 6.2 metres by 3.8 metres. The proposal was 1.1 metres deeper and 0.3 metres higher.

·         It was considered that this increase resulted in significant additional impact on neighbour amenity, as this was the only aspect to receive direct sunlight. The outlook from and the overshadowing of the neighbouring property was unacceptable.

·         Additional information from the agent and applicant, and photos from the neighbouring property had been received within the update report. The recommendation of officers had not, however, changed.

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

·         Highlighted the importance of the planning system weighting applications against neighbour amenity.

·         The applicants disregard for these rules had caused the resident of the neighbouring property significant stress.

·         The development extended the full depth of the garden and had a harmful impact on residential amenity.

·         The development compounded issues of overshadowing and dominated the area.

·         The loss of light to the neighbouring property was made significantly worse by the proposal. 

·         It was confirmed that, although no written objection had been received, the resident of the neighbouring property did object. Members of the Parish Council were minded of the impact the proposal had, but had made no further comment.

Stuart Cleworth, Applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Cleworth apologised for his misunderstanding of the prior approval process. He had believed a single storey extension would be supported and not considered harmful.

·         The previous extension’s flat roof had not been in keeping with the character of the area, and the reduction in eve height was considered to be an improvement.

·         It was suggested that the gardens of the neighbouring properties would only receive direct sunlight for one hour a day, so this loss was not significant.

·         The density of the tree belt already blocked out a substantial amount of sunlight, more so than the proposal.

·         It was noted that the applicant could increase the height of his fence to two metres without the need for planning permission.

·         Attempts had been made to engage neighbours, however had been unsuccessful. Before today Mr Cleworth had believed there to be no objections.

The Development Management Manager clarified that within the prior approval process an extension of up to 8 metres could be erected, as long as there were no objections from neighbours. The applicant had followed this process with a prior approval notice application for an extension of 6.2 metres. An objection was received from a neighbour, however it had been considered by officers that a 6.2 metre extension would not be harmful and prior approval was granted. The applicant had proceeded to erect an extension of 7.3 metres, beyond what had been approved. The Committee were advised that the prior approval requirements were not applicable to retrospective applications, as such, the lack of neighbour objection to the current application was not relevant.

The Committee appreciated that the applicant may have been confused by the prior approval process, however considered the proposal dominated the garden and had extensive impact on neighbour amenity.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried by eight votes, one voting against.

RESOLVED: (eight voted for, one voted against) that planning permission is REFUSED for the reason given below.

Reasons for the decision

The proposal was unacceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and for the specific reason:

The extension, by way of its height, depth and location and given the orientation of the dwellings, would result in an unacceptable level of overshadowing and enclosure for the neighbour 39 Farleigh Fields, to the detriment of their amenity. This is contrary to policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (DPD) and policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies (DPD) 2012 which state;

CS16 - New development should not result in unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.

PP3 - Planning permission will not be granted for development which would result in; (d) loss of light to and/or overshadowing of any nearby property; or (e) overbearing impact on any nearby neighbour.