Outbuilding at 5 Park Lane, Eastfield, Peterborough

What was proposed

Permission was sought for a part-retrospective outbuilding containing a gym, toilet, store, office and prayer room.

“Proposal Permission is sought for the ‘erection of out-building (part-retrospective)’.”

“The Council also requested further justification regarding compliance with Policy LP34. While the plans show a gym, toilet, store, office and prayer room, however, given the size and potential of the development to operate as an annex, Policy LP34 is considered applicable.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a semi-detached home with a side garage and front parking in an established residential area.

“Site and Surroundings The application property is a semi-detached property situated within the established residential area of Eastfield, Peterborough, and is a 2-storey dwelling with access to a side garage and parking area at the front of the property. The street is characterised by residential properties, with a pattern of semi-detached pairs with various styles but mostly buff brick walls and brown tiled roofs.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier outbuilding application was withdrawn after concerns about overbearing impact and the scale of the proposed development.

“Note Application 25/01298/HHFUL was withdrawn following concerns that it would be refused due to its overbearing impact, particularly given its proximity to the boundary with No. 7. To address these concerns, the Council recommended the removal of the canopy to reduce the overall massing and allow the extension to step away from the neighbouring boundary.”

“This application proposes the same development, with the rear elevation gym window removed and the office and store windows amended to be obscure-glazed and non-opening below 1.7m above internal floor level. All other aspects of the proposal remain unchanged.”

Officer report

What residents said

Three objections raised concerns about overlooking, privacy, noise, disturbance, overbearing impact, inaccurate plans, scale and works already undertaken.

“Initial consultations: 13 Total number of responses: 3 Total number of objections: 3 Total number in support: 0”

“Three objections were received to the application, raising concerns regarding overlooking and loss of privacy, noise and disturbance, overbearing impact due to proximity, inaccuracies in the submitted plans, the retrospective nature and scale of the building, and works undertaken without relocating gutters or pipework. These matters are addressed in the assessment below.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent was the only registered speaker and addressed the committee after the officer presentation.

Members’ view

Members considered the proposal acceptable with conditions and did not consider it excessively large or harmful to local character or neighbouring amenity.

“Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, Members considered the proposal acceptable for the following reasons:”

“The proposal was not considered to conflict with policies LP16 and LP34 of the Peterborough Local Plan. • The proposal was not considered to be excessively large or have a detrimental impact on the character of the area or neighbouring amenity. • The outbuilding shall remain incidental to the main dwellinghouse and not be used, occupied or let as separate residential accommodation.”

Minutes

How members voted

The committee lost the motion to refuse, then approved a motion to grant permission contrary to officers’ recommendation.

“13:40 –The meeting was adjourned following the officer’s presentation to allow for the arrival of the applicant's agent, who was the only registered speaker. 13:57 –The meeting reconvened and heard representations from the applicant’s agent. Following the Committee’s consideration of the report and representations, a motion was proposed and seconded to REFUSE planning permission in accordance with officers’ recommendation.”

Minutes