| Description: |
Demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey extension to gable sides, two storey front extension, single storey side extension, single storey rear extension with ornate balcony area above, decking area to rear with access ramp, render external materials and new boundary wall, fencing & gates (Part-retrospective) |
| Conditions / Reason for Refusal: |
01
The Council considers that by virtue of siting and height, the raised decking would result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers through unacceptable levels overlooking to the rear gardens of neighbouring properties, namely 15 and 19 Stafford Drive. Accordingly, the application is contrary to the SPD Householder Design Guide, Design Guidance 1.3, Local Plan Policy CS28 ‘Sustainable Design’ and SP55 ‘Design Principles’ and paragraph 135f of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
02
The Council considers that by virtue of siting and land levels/orientation the rear balcony on first floor level would result in detrimental harm to the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers through unacceptable levels of overlooking into the rear gardens and habitable rooms of neighbouring properties. As such, the application is contrary to the SPD Householder Design Guide, Design Guidance 1.3, Local Plan Policy CS28 ‘Sustainable Design’ and SP55 ‘Design Principles’, and paragraph 135f of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
03
The Council considers that by virtue of scale and massing, the two storey front gable extension would result in a dominant and overbearing addition at odds with the character of dwellinghouses and their site layouts within the surrounding streetscene. Accordingly, this application is contrary to Local Plan Policies CS28 ‘Sustainable Design’ and SP55 ‘Design Principles’, as well as paragraphs 135a, 135b and 135c of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT
The applicant did not enter into any pre application discussions with the Local Planning Authority. It is not possible to support a scheme of this nature nor would any amendments make it acceptable. It was not considered to be in accordance with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework and resulted in this refusal.
|
