Agenda item

The planning application was for ground floor and first floor extension at Rectory House, Castor Road, Marholm, with remodelling.

The main considerations set out in the reports 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

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

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

·         The application aimed to be a more energy efficient development, utilising ‘green’ energy.

·         The proposal included raising the roof of the existing dwelling.

·         It was considered that the proposed development would improve shadow of the property in some areas and would mean very little difference in others.

Councillor Holdich, Ward Councillor, and Tim Hawkins, Chairman of Marholm Parish Council, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The Ward Councillor asked for this application to be heard by Committee as the applicants wife was a Parish Councillor. It was considered that this was the best way for the objectors to feel they had a fair opportunity to have their say.

·         Marholm Parish Council were trying to modernise their approach to planning applications and become more transparent. As such, applicats were invited to attend Parish Council meetings to support their application.

·         The Parish Council were pleased with the proposal and were impressed with the ecological credentials of the design.

·         It was confirmed that the wife of the applicant had been excluded from voting on this matter.

·         The Parish Council believed that the shadowing of the development would not be worse than current.

·         The Parish Council considered the application submitted. It was noted that interior could be updated at the same time, the applicant desired, but this was not relevant for the application.

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

·         The first floor of the proposal ran parallel to Mr Plant’s boundary. It was considered that this would block out areas of light and have an overbearing impact. The application site was higher that the neighbouring land, which would increase the effect.

·         The proposals ran for 14 metres of Mr Plant’s boundary, out of a total of 23 metres. It was believed that the proposals could be sited elsewhere on the property, where they would have less of an effect on neighbour amenity.

·         It was believed that the property could be extended and modernised without having such a detrimental impact on neighbours’ amenity.

David Shaw, Agent, and Jan Maciag, Architect, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The applicants wanted to establish their family home on the application site. The proposal would house a wood burner and other equipment at the rear of the garage.

·         Pre-application had been sought and had resulted in several changes to the design of the application.

·         It was stated that the applicants invited neighbours and the Parish Council to comment, and the application was received positively.

·         Objections had been received during the application process and the scheme was further revised to reduce its height and bring it further away from the boundary.

·         It was not considered that the proposal would impact on the amenity of the neighbours at Grey Gables, as the shadowing was no greater than current. With the removal of the hedge, it would be marginally improved.

·         The equipment that was to be housed in the development would create approximately the same noise as a large freezer. It needed to be in the proposed location to minimise the transition route.

·         It was not considered that there was a large difference in the height of the site and the neighbouring site.

The Committee considered the application and discussed the potential impact of the proposal on neighbour amenity. The resulting shadowing was discussed and it was concluded that the proposal did not represent an increase in the level of shadowing over the neighbouring property.

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

RESOLVED: (8 voted in favour, 1 voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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 policies PP2, PP3 and PP17 of the Peterborough Planning Policies (DPD) 2012 and policies CS16 and CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (DPD) 2011.