House extensions at Woodland View, Barnoldby le Beck

What was proposed

The application proposed two-storey side and rear extensions, Juliet balconies, roof alterations, rooflights, and a single-storey rear extension with a roof lantern.

“The development includes the erection of a two storey side and rear extension with associated Juliet balconies. There would also be alterations to the existing roof in the form of rooflights and rooflight tubes. It also involves the erection of a single storey rear extension with an associated roof lantern.”

Officer report

The officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the extensions were considered suitable for the property and would not cause significant harm to design or neighbouring amenity.

“2) Design and Visual Amenity 3) Impact on Neighbouring Amenity 4) Surface Water Drainage 5) Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain 6) Highways 1) Principle of Development The proposal is located outside of the development boundary as defined within Policy 5 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2013-2032 (adopted 2018) but is located at an existing residential property and relates to a domestic development in the form of extensions and alterations to that property.”

“On this basis this proposal would not lead to an increase in parking demand elsewhere or create highway safety or amenity concerns. The proposal therefore would not cause any adverse impacts with regards to parking capacity and safety and is in accordance with Policies 5 and 38 of the NELLP.”

Officer report

Objections from neighbours

Neighbours raised concerns about massing, dominance, loss of light, privacy, residential amenity, changes to the site and surface-water drainage.

“The Oakes - Objects on grounds of loss of light and overshadowing, dominance and massing, loss of privacy, harm to residential amenity and has suggested alternatives for the applicant to consider. Summerfield House, 3 The Paddocks - Refers to original site as a bungalow and how the site has changed since planning permission was approved. The main concerns raised are in relation to light and the surface water drainage of the development.”

Officer report

What people said

A neighbour opposed the extension because it would shade her patio and kitchen, reduce privacy and create an intrusive and disproportionate development.

Members’ debate

Members focused on the possible loss of light and privacy, the left-side extension, screening and whether a site visit was needed to understand the impact.

“Councillor Hudson said that even though it was large house and a large plot, he thought it was going to impact the light of the neighbour. He said that he was inclined to propose that a site visit take place, so committee members could see what the impact would be. Councillor Hudson said that he had no problem with the extension on the right side but on the left side he had concerns.”

“Councillor Shutt said that he felt he couldn’t get a perspective from the photos, and the benefit of a site visit was that you were able to see the context particularly if the site visit took place in the morning. He stated that he would support the proposal of deferral to allow for a site visit to take place.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee deferred the application so members could visit the site and assess the proposal’s impact.

“(Note - the committee voted 9 for, 1 against with 1 abstention for the application to be deferred for a site visit.)”

Minutes