Single-storey rear extension at 29 Allcot Road, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application sought prior approval for a single-storey rear extension projecting 4.3 metres, with eaves at 2.5 metres and a maximum height of 3.8 metres.

“The application is brought to committee because of a call-in from Councillor Inman.”

“The application is for prior approval under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for construction of single storey rear extension, extending 4.3m beyond the rear wall, with a height of 2.5m to the eaves and maximum height of 3.8m.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a vacant two-storey mid-terrace house with a demolished rear extension, surrounded by similar homes with varied rear extensions.

“The application site is a vacant two storey mid-terrace residential property on the northern side of Allcot Road. The property is set back from the road by a front forecourt with low brick boundary wall and features a two-storey bay window. The property had a single storey rear extension which was recently demolished.”

“The surrounding area is characterised by similar two-storey terraced dwellings. A vast majority of the neighbouring dwellings have single storey rear extensions of varied length of the projections. The rear extension at no. 31 (to the east) projects 1.6m, and the rear extension at no. 27 projects 2.3m.”

Officer report

Planning history

The report states that the property had no planning history.

“There is no planning history associated with the property.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers found no unacceptable harm to residential amenity and recommended that prior approval be granted.

“The concerns regarding temporary disruption during construction, including noise, disturbance and contractor parking, are noted. However, such impacts are generally short- term in nature and are not a consideration that would justify refusal of prior approval. Any works would be expected to be undertaken in accordance with relevant environmental and highway legislation.”

“Having regard to the limited increase in depth beyond the existing extension, the north- facing orientation of the site, and the relationship with neighbouring properties, the proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable harm to residential amenity. As such the proposal accords with the requirements of Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO as such can prior approval can be granted.”

Officer report

The main issue

The only issue for consideration was the proposal’s impact on neighbouring amenity.

“The only issue for consideration is the impact on the neighbouring amenity.”

Officer report

Objections received

One adjoining property submitted two comments raising concerns about light, scale, construction disruption, parking, drainage and party walls.

“Two comments have been received from one of the adjoining properties raising the following concerns:”

“Loss of natural light to rear rooms, kitchen and garden; • Overbearing impact and out of character scale; • Impact on long-term residents including disruption from construction works, and parking; • Water run off may impact on neighbouring gutters; • Concerns relating to party wall.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant gave a deputation supporting the application.

Members discussed the proposal

Officers explained their site visit and said effects on daylight and sunlight would be limited, while Councillor Inman said his concerns had been resolved.

“Members' Questions In response to questions, officers provided the following information as clarification: • Officers had visited the site to consider the impact of loss of light and privacy. They had taken the photographs that were in the presentation. • The extension would project beyond the neighbouring brown brick wall and would be deeper than the extensions either side. However, this was not uncommon in the area and officers felt it was satisfactory.”

“Members' comments Councillor Inman, who had called in the application, said his concerns about the loss of light had been resolved and he was happy with the proposal.”

Minutes