Ground-floor rear extension at 40 Allen Road, New England, Peterborough

“Proposal: Demolition of existing covered area and conservatory and construction of a new ground floor rear extension - revised application…”

“The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing covered area and conservatory, and the construction of a new ground floor rear extension.”

“The application site is located in the New England area surrounded by two storey residential dwellings of varying architectural design. The site itself is a two storey semidetached dwelling constructed using white render, white UPVC windows and doors, and interlocking roof tiles.”

“Note: This is the second application of similar design and massing at this site. The previous application (24/01297/HHFUL) did not reference any personal circumstances of the Applicant or their dependants within the application submission and the extension was labelled as a downstairs toilet and amenity room with no further details.”

“The current application slightly differs from the previous refusal by moving the extension off the shared boundary with No. Allen Road. Medical evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the need for a downstairs toilet.”

“The proposed rear extension would result in the overdevelopment of the site which would leave a limited garden provision for a large family dwelling. The proposed would leave just 37sqm of accessible rear amenity space, hemmed in either side with built form.”

“R2 The application site is located in an area of which is deficient in public open space, and the proposal results in the reduction of the external amenity space for a large family dwelling. The proposal will result in sub-standard and inadequate provision of external amenity provision by virtue of the extent and footprint of the proposed development. As such the proposal will be contrary to LP17 of the Peterborough Local Plan (2019).”

“No public comments were received during the course of the application…”

“The Committee considered the report and representations. A motion was proposed and seconded to go against officer recommendation and GRANT the application. The Committee RESOLVED unanimously to GRANT the planning permission subject to relevant conditions delegated to officers.”

“On balance Members felt that the application was acceptable due to the medical needs cited in the applicant’s address.”