House extensions and landscaping at 33 Beacon Drive, Newton

The site and surroundings

The site was a detached brick two-storey home in a residential area, on sloping land between uphill and downhill neighbouring properties.

“Comments made within submitted representations are summarised below: • Inappropriate scale, overdevelopment, loss of visual break between houses • Overbearing and dominating; too close to shared boundaries; balcony towers over neighbouring sites • Overlooking, loss of privacy; loss of outlook • Noise, light pollution and disturbance • Balcony screens would add extra height of the single storey extension adding further intrusion and visual impact • Trees will block natural…”

“33 Beacon Drive is a detached brick two-storey dwelling located in a primarily residential area within West Kirby. The property was constructed circa 1950 and sits on a street characterised by sloping south-west to north-east land levels and wide grass verges lined with trees. No.31 Beacon Drive is situated uphill from the application site and No.35 Beacon Drive is situated downhill from the application site.”

Officer report

Planning history and referral

There was no planning history, and the application was referred after a ward councillor requested committee consideration and more than 15 objections were received.

“Reason for referral to Planning Committee Councillor Jenny Johnson requested the application be taken out of delegation; and the number of individual objections received exceeds 15.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Twenty-seven individuals objected over scale, character, privacy, overlooking, disturbance, drainage and information, while two supported the design and accessibility.

“Ward Member Comments Councillor Johnson has requested that the application be taken out of delegation due to concerns regarding the scale, impacts to the character of the street scene, massification of the plot, overlooking and privacy amongst other issues which is exacerbated by the proposed balcony and large patio, whilst a high fence would be required in some parts to overcome privacy issues.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The lead objectors, Councillor Jenny Johnson and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee, with members questioning the agent.

The vote

Councillor S Kelly moved approval, Councillor P Stuart seconded it, and the application was approved unanimously.

“On a motion by the Chair, Councillor S Kelly, and seconded by Councillor P Stuart, it was:”

“That for the reasons set out in the report the application be approved, subject to the following conditions:”

Minutes

The decision and conditions

The committee approved the application for the reasons given in the assessment, with conditions covering timing, approved plans, materials, obscure glazing and balcony privacy screens.

“No development involving the use of any facing materials for the front boundary wall and the landscaping to the rear shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of these external surfaces of the development, hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details thereafter.”

“The opaque privacy screens on either side of the proposed balcony, as shown on the approved drawings, shall be installed to a height of 1.8m (measured from the floor level of the proposed balcony) prior to the first use of the balcony and retained as such thereafter.”

Minutes