House extensions and boundary wall at 177 Ashby Road, Scunthorpe

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was acceptable in principle and would not cause unacceptable harm to living conditions or the area’s character.

“impacts on residential amenity • design and impact on the character and appearance of the area • other matters. Principle of development Policy DS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan (NLLP) needs to be considered. As the proposal is for extensions to an existing dwelling, it is acceptable in principle, subject to it having no adverse overbearing, overshadowing or loss of privacy impacts on residential amenity.”

“…biodiversity net gain legislation. This proposal constitutes a householder application and is therefore exempt from BNG legislation. Conclusion Having regard to the above, it is considered that the principle of this development is acceptable; it would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on living conditions for occupants of nearby residential properties; and would not result in unacceptable adverse impact on the character and…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

National Grid raised no objection, and highways found that visibility, parking and bedroom numbers raised no further concerns.

“CONSULTATIONS National Grid: No comments or objections. Highways: The applicant has demonstrated that the pedestrian visibility splays can be achieved. There is no increase in the number of bedrooms at the property and there is ample space in front of the property for off-road parking. Therefore, we have no further comments to make on this application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An adjoining owner objected to the scale and loss of light, while the applicant’s agent defended the design and overshadowing assessment.

Members’ concerns

Councillors raised concerns about overshadowing, light and whether the proposal fitted the area.

“Cllr Gosling stated that he agreed fully with the objector, and that there were significant concerns with the proposed extensions and the impact on light and overshadowing. These concerns were echoed by Cllr Southern. Cllr Matthews stated that the proposal was not in keeping with the area and they would not be in favour of granting the application.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to refuse was defeated, and the substantive motion to approve was carried.

“It was then moved by Cllr D Wells and seconded by Cllr C Patterson –”

“Amendment Lost. Substantive Motion Carried.”

Minutes