Side and rear extensions at 20 Newbold Avenue, Newbold, Chesterfield

What was proposed

The application proposed one- and two-storey side and rear extensions, alterations to the dwelling, garage demolition and an integral garage.

“The application site is located on the eastern side of Newbold Avenue, in a predominately residential area. The dwellings surrounding the site are a mix of two storey detached and semi-detached properties. The site comprises a two storey, detached dwelling with a single storey rear projection and detached garage.”

“During consideration of the proposal, amended plans have been requested and submitted to address concerns regarding the impacts of the proposal. The amended proposal seeks to retain the front gable, with high level elongated window and arch detail. A two storey side extension is proposed on the southern elevation of the property, with two storey and single storey rear extensions also proposed.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Two residents and a solicitor raised concerns about light, privacy, noise, dust, enclosure, stability, legal rights and protected characteristics.

“- The impact of the development upon neighbouring occupiers, through loss of light, privacy, noise, disturbance and dust - Some residents work shifts and need daytime rest - Development could adversely impact how neighbouring occupiers utilise their home - Impact on residents, children and adults, with characteristics protected under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).”

“- No substantive response has been provided to the detailed objections and supporting evidence previously submitted - Continue to object to the revised plans and fully endorse and adopt the objections submitted by my solicitor - Confirm written confirmation that all my representations and supporting documents have been received, logged against the application file and will be properly considered - Concerned about the massing and depth of the extension, including the single…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and the applicant addressed the committee, while another applicant attended and helped answer members’ questions without speaking.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the reduced distance, daylight effects, front window and garage, and concluded the amended proposal was not intrusive to light or living standards.

“The Committee considered the report and recommendations within it and Members noted the reduced distance between the two properties that number 20 was larger after being extended but was not overly intrusive and that loss of light was an issue raised by the owner of 22A but they accepted that amendments made to the plans had improved the design, the high level front window was now further from the extension and main lounge front window was clear.”

“The loss of light and the Waldron method was queried by the committee members, but it was understood that this would be dealt with under civil law. Overall, it was felt the application is not intrusive in terms of light and living standards and proposed the officer recommendation be accepted.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Caulfield moved to uphold the officer recommendation, and Councillor K Falconer seconded the motion.

“It was moved by Councillor Caulfield and seconded by Councillor K Falconer that the officer recommendation be upheld.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee upheld the officer recommendation and granted permission subject to the conditions in the officer recommendation.

“That the officer recommendation be upheld, and the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions outlined in the Officer’s report.”

Minutes