Extended dwelling at 57 Clifford Road, Penrith

What was proposed

The application proposed renovating and extending the dwelling with a full-width two-storey rear extension, front dormers, solar panels and biodiversity measures.

“The application seeks planning permission for the renovation and extension of the existing dwelling, including the erection of a two-storey rear extension and the installation of new dormer windows to the front elevation. The site is located within an established residential area of Penrith.”

“The application is recommended for refusal. THE PROPOSAL 3.1 The application seeks planning permission for the renovation and extension of an existing dwelling, comprising a full-width two-storey rear extension and the installation of two dormer windows on the front elevation.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is a single-storey semi-detached dwelling in a quiet residential area, with a sloping garden and woodland beyond the rear boundary.

“The application site is located on the southern edge of the defined settlement boundary of Penrith, within a quiet residential area along Clifford Road. The street is characterised predominantly by single-storey, semi-detached dwellings. The site occupies a lower ground level relative to properties on the opposite side of Clifford…”

“Road, which are positioned on higher land. No. Clifford Road comprises a single-storey dwelling set back from the highway behind a sloping front garden, which is bounded by a low front boundary wall. A garage is located to the side of the property and is attached to the neighbouring garage, reflecting the semi-detached form of development in the area. To the rear, the property benefits from a long, gently sloping garden enclosed by a low fence.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would be overly dominant, harm local character and create unacceptable effects on neighbouring residential amenity.

“Whilst the principle of extending the dwelling is acceptable, the proposed development fails to respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. By reason of its scale, massing and design, the proposal would result in an overly dominant and incongruous form of development. In addition, the proposal would give rise to unacceptable impacts on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.”

Officer report

The main concerns

The full-width rear extension, first-floor element, balcony and front dormers were considered visually intrusive, overbearing and harmful to privacy.

“The proposed development comprises a full-width rear extension at ground-floor level, with a first-floor rear extension measuring approximately 5 metres in width and incorporating a roof height close to that of the host dwelling's ridge. Whilst part of the ground-floor extension would remain single storey, the scale, height and massing of the first-floor element are such that it would not appear subordinate to the host dwelling.”

“Due to its scale, height and depth, the extension would appear visually overbearing when viewed from adjacent properties, particularly given the limited screening provided by existing boundary treatments. Whilst the applicant has proposed additional screening, this is not considered to provide an appropriate solution as it would reduce the open character of the rear garden whilst failing to fully mitigate the impacts of the development.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The Town Council supported the application but suggested frosted windows if overlooking was an issue; no representations were recorded in the application assessment.

“Penrith Town Council Penrith Town Council supports the application but notes that, if there is an issue of overlooking an adjoining property, then frosted windows should be required as a condition of planning consent being granted in order to maintain privacy.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and the applicant’s architect spoke in support, citing sustainable design, modifications, similar properties and limited visual and privacy impacts.

The decision

The committee approved the application subject to standard conditions, concluding that the massing and privacy impacts would not harm the area or neighbours.

“Councillor Baker clarified that the application should be approved as the massing was reflective of other properties in the area, residential amenity would not be negatively affected and the privacy of neighbouring properties would not be negatively impacted. Adding that privacy was not an issue due to the proposed location of the extension.”

“RESOLVED, that the application be approved subject to the standard conditions outlined at the meeting.”

Minutes

Conditions attached

The proposed standard conditions covered commencement within three years, approved plans, acceptable materials and biodiversity requirements.

“The Development Manager recommended that the following standard conditions be attached if members were minded to approve the application; - 3 years for commencement - The development be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans…”

“- That Acceptable Materials be used in the development, - The standard Biodiversity conditions…”

Minutes