Single-storey rear extension at 579 Fulbridge Road, Peterborough

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because reasonable alternatives had not been demonstrated and the proposal would harm a protected tree and create poor living conditions.

“Officers acknowledge that the applicant has submitted supporting medical evidence demonstrating that a family member is unable to access first floor accommodation and would therefore benefit from additional ground floor living space. This personal circumstance is fully understood and has been given significant weight in the assessment of the proposal.”

“Whilst Officers are sympathetic to the applicant’s circumstances and recognise the identified need, the proposal as submitted would result in both avoidable harm to a protected tree and the creation of substandard living conditions.”

Officer report

The main planning issues

Officers found no harmful effect on appearance, heritage or parking, but identified unacceptable amenity and tree impacts.

“The proposed design respects the scale, mass, depth and materials of the host dwelling and would not result in visual harm upon the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. There would be no visibility from Fulbridge Road and limited visibility from The Green.”

“In this case, the proposed foundation design would require excavation within the Root Protection Area of a protected multi-stemmed plum tree at No. 44 The Green. The submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment identifies that such excavation would result in avoidable harm to the tree’s root system, and the proposal does not follow the specialist foundation approach recommended to minimise impacts.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The conservation officer had no objection, the neighbourhood council made no comments, and the tree officer maintained objections after further information.

“PCC Tree Officer (12.02.2026) Objection, on arboricultural/landscape grounds. . The proposal is considered unacceptable because the rear extension would be built within 1 m of a protected multi-stemmed plum tree located in the neighbouring garden at 44 The Green. This raises concerns about harm to the tree and its root protection area, contrary to the guidance in BS5837:2012 on trees and construction.”

“PCC Tree Officer (14.05.2026) Objection, on arboricultural/landscape grounds Following the submission of a piling quotation the proposal remains unacceptable due to insufficient information being provided to make an informed decision with regards to the suitability of the proposed piling/foundation works. The submission lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate a ‘no-dig’ foundation, including missing sectional drawings and a plan showing pile locations.”

Officer report

What residents and councillor said

One neighbour objected over effects on a mature boundary tree and roots, while the ward councillor considered the proposal policy-compliant.

“One objection was received from No. 44 The Green, Werrington. The concerns raised were in relation to the impact the proposed development would have on the mature boundary tree positioned with their garden and other established root systems.”

“A consultation response was received from Ward Councillor Alexander Rafiq, who considered the proposal to be compliant with the relevant policies of the Peterborough Local Plan (2019). He also requested that the application be referred to the Planning Committee, should the case officer recommend refusal.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard representations from officers and a speaker supporting the application; the applicant’s representation preceded a closed session.

The committee vote

The committee confirmed refusal with seven votes in favour and two abstentions.

“The Committee CONFIRMED (For 7 / Abstained 2) that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the extension would restrict outlook and natural light and disturb the protected tree’s roots.

“R 1 By virtue of the extensions scale and location, it results in the relocation of habitable room windows that will compromise the amenity of existing and future occupiers. The proximity to the rear boundary treatment will significantly restrict the outlook, natural light, and overall amenity of the internal living spaces. As such, the proposal would create a poor-quality environment for current and future occupiers.”

“R 2 By virtue of the proposed foundation design and its location within the Root Protection Area of the protected multi stemmed plum tree at No. 44 The Green, the development would result in avoidable excavation and disturbance to the tree’s root system, contrary to the recommendations set out in the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment.”

Minutes