The planning application was for proposed two story side and rear extensions at 1 Franklyn Crescent, Eastfield, Peterborough.
The main considerations set out in the reports were:
· Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area
· Impact upon neighbour amenity
· Parking provision
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.
The Development Manager provided an overview of the applications and raised the following key points:
· The neighbouring property had previously been extended on two floors towards the shared boundary with the application site.
· Permission had been granted in 2013 for an extension on the application site, including a single story side element and a two storey rear extension.
· A 2014 application including a two storey side extension and a partial wrap-around development had been refused.
· The impact on neighbouring properties was considered acceptable, as it would not be significantly different to that permission already granted.
· The recommendation for refusal stemmed from the effect the development would have on the streetscene. If was considered that the proposal would effectively ‘terrace’ the neighbouring houses. The street was characterised by the gap in between each pair of houses. To lose this character would be detrimental.
Councillor Shabbir, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· The applicants had approached Councillor Shabbir following issues with their architect.
· The applicants’ architect had submitted the previously approved planning application without the approval of the applicants.
· It was noted that the roof of the neighbouring property extended unnecessarily far. It was urged that the applicants were not penalised for the bad design of the neighbouring dwelling.
· The applicants required a two storey extension in order to look after family members, whose health was fading. The applicant’s father had been diagnosed with dementia.
Aysha Rahman, Applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· The previously approved application for the site had been submitted by the architect without the applicants’ approval.
· Mrs Rahman’s father had recently been diagnosed with dementia and, as such needed continuous treatment and care
· The applicant’s parents could not cope by themselves and it was necessary for them to stay with the applicant.
· The applicants did not want to, nor were they able to, move house.
· The neighbouring property already had a similar extension to that proposed. It was considered unfair that one was permitted and the other not.
· No complaints or objections had been received from any neighbours.
· It was vital that the applicants created additional space in their property.
The Committee commended the applicant for their desire to care for their elderly relatives. It was, however, noted that the Committee could consider material planning considerations only. The Committee believed that the proposal did represent a change in the streetscene however this change would not be detrimental enough to warrant refusal. It was believed that in respect of this application in particular, because of the angle of the dwelling in relation to the neighbouring property and the fact that the site was at the end of the road, the effect on the streetscene would be less than in other circumstances.
The Development Manager advised that, in exceptional situations, the personal circumstances of an applicant could be taken into consideration. It was suggested that emphasis be made on the unique situation of this application in relation to its siting at the end of the street and it angle in relation to the neighbouring dwelling, in order to avoid setting a precedent.
A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, contrary to officer recommendation, as it was considered that the proposal was not detrimental to the surrounding streetscene. The motion was carried eight votes in favour and one vote against.
RESOLVED: (eight voted in favour, one voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to relevant conditions.
Reasons for the decision
The proposal was not considered to cause sufficient detriment to the surrounding streetscene to justify refusal of the application.