Agenda item

15/000479/HHFUL - 13 Allotment Lane, Castor, Peterborough, PE5 7AS


The planning application was for the demolition of an existing garage at 13 Allotment Lane, Castor, and the erection of a single storey front extension and two storey front extension. The application was a resubmission.


The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         Policy Context

·         Impact on Heritage Assets and Character and Appearance of the Area

·         Neighbour Amenity


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:

·         There was a mixture of architecture in the surrounding area, and listed buildings further down the lane.

·         The proposals would result in 7 metre by 3.8 metre extension at ground floor, wider than the current garage, with the first floor 2 metres shorter.

·         There had been no objections from the public, and the proposals had received support from both the Parish Council and Ward Councillor.

·         It was considered by officers that the modern buildings in the area were not the prominent feature and that the proposals would make a significant difference to the street scene.

·         It was believed that the proposed extension would dominate the area and change its character.

·         It was advised that previous issues with impact on residential amenity had now been addressed within the proposal.

·         Within the update report additional comments had been received from Castor Parish Council, in support of the application. Photographs had been submitted by the applicant of other comparable developments in the locality.


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

·         The Councillor highlighted that the building opposite the application site had been development and had modified every aspect of the property.

·         The area was characterised by a mixture of housing styles and sizes.

·         No neighbour amenity would be effected, nor would there be any adverse impact on the conservation area.

·         The applicant needed more room for their family and did not wish to move.

·         Councillor Lamb confirmed that the Parish Council was in support of the application.


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

·         The applicant did not want to detriment the character of the area.

·         The application property was already different in style to the other dwellings in the surrounding locality. As such it was not believed that granting this application would set a precedent.

·         It was suggested that the proposals would improve the area, which was ‘hotchpotch’ in character.

·         The street scene was obscured from the west by trees and bushes and from the east by a wall.

·         The applicant highlight the development at 10 Manor Farm Lane, which was believed to be of a similar nature to their proposal. It was suggested that there was no consistency in the approach to the two developments.


The Committee thanked the applicant for her address. During discussion the Committee raised several points, including the prospect of the first floor development extending beyond the line of the trees. Significant weight was attached the Parish Council support of the application, however the Committee did note that this was not the only relevant factor.


It was considered that, as the buildings in the area were all different in style, the proposal would not alter the character of the area. As the first floor did not extend as far as the ground floor proposal, it was thought that it would not obstruct any view of the landscape beyond.


A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, contrary to officer recommendation, for the reason that, rather than being detrimental to the conservation area and residential amenity, the proposal would improve the area. The motion was carried seven voting in favour, two voting against.


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


Reasons for the decision


The proposals were not considered to be to the detriment of the conservation area, but were believed to improve the aesthetic of the surrounding area. There was not considered to be any loss of amenity for neighbouring properties.


Supporting documents: