Agenda item

Erection of two storey side and rear extension and two storey front extension.

79 Pilley’s Lane  Boston  Lincolnshire  PE21 9RA

Mrs Ayesha Virk

Erection of two storey side and rear extension and two storey front extension.       

79 Pilley’s Lane Boston, Lincolnshire  PE21 9RA

Mrs Ayesha Virk

The Interim Development Manager presented the report confirming that he would provide a full overview of the application, which had been deferred from the last committee meeting to permit the site visit, in order for Councillor Paul Gleeson who had not been in attendance at the previous meeting, to receive a full presentation.

Representation was received in objection to the application by Mr Howarth which included:

Thanking committee for undertaking the site visit Mr Howarth reiterated that the principle objection remained the awesome size of the proposed extension which was overbearing, overlooking and dominant in nature and directly impacted on the vast chunk of light in the south east quadrant that would be lost to us forever, not just sunlight but natural light would be lost.

The extension facing their home would be the size of three double-decker buses parked side by side with three single decker buses parked on top of them.  Mr Howarth stated he felt that to be grotesque.  Members were asked to recognise that the objectors had elected to live in the countryside and not in a city.

Mr Howarth stated he felt very much on the back foot in the process with the onus on him to try to justify why he did not want his home to be encroached upon and cast into permanent shadow.  He stated that as a lay person he had found it extremely difficult to find persuasive evidence to put before the committee to show that they were likely to suffer substantial harm.  He noted that it appeared nobody could explain what substantial harm was, although many experts were willing to say what it was not.  Mr Howarth stated that he had been advised he had no further opportunity to make further:  following a telephone conversation from the clerk it appeared he did indeed have although he only had a couple of days to do so.   He referenced the 25 45 degree rule of thumb which was part of the guidance to good practice developed by the world recognised buildings research establishment. 

Whilst the rules were not set in stone they were used by many planning authorities and accepted as experttestimony in the courts. 

It lent some objectivity to the vexatious question of light and he himself had demonstrated that the proposed extension failed in the respect of light into his first floor bedroom.   The 25 degree rule failed spectacularly in respect of his kitchen window which faced the west wall of the extension and as in many homes, he stressed that the kitchen was the heart of his home.  If built it would be totally eclipsed.

Representation was received by the applicant Mrs Virk which included:

The application was to permit an extension to their property to allow the applicants young family to expand and grow, following their move to Boston.  Referencing the NPPF the applicant stated that it dictated that permission should be granted unless adverse impact significantly and demonstrably out-weighed the benefit.  Planning policy should not stifle innovation; originality or initiative.  Members were advised that the property was a standard 1950’s build which allowed the applicant a blank canvas.  No. 81 was 2.5 metres from their boundary with no. 77 being 1.5 metres from the boundary.  All properties on Pilley’s Lane were individual in style with some set along the road and some set back.  All had south facing gardens and therefore there was no significant impact on light to neighbours.  The applicant confirmed they had spoken to two architects in respect of the light elements: both had agreed that no. 81 would not be affected but no. 77 could be affected. As such, the applicant stressed that only a single storey was being implemented on that side to cause minimal impact.  From an innovative point of view it was the intent to produce an eco friendly house suitable for a growing family. Once built the property would still have in excess of 42 metres of garden.  The neighbour at no.81 already had a single storey extension which superseded the applicants’ extension.  Committee were asked to recognise that if built, the extension would only go out a further 6 metres as it included the existing single storey extension into an open plan living room.   No. 75 already had an open balcony: the applicants proposed balcony was fully enclosed with walls both sides and an opaque balustrade so as not to impact on anybody’s privacy. 

Following member commenting which agreed the benefit of the site visit, the Interim Development Manager referred committee to Policy H10 which had been quoted by a member during the debate.  Members were reminded that Policy H10 was not applicable as the application site was not within the settlement:  as such no weight could be paid to it within the determination.

It was moved by Councillor Claire Rylott and seconded by Councillor Yvonne Stevens that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the conditions and reasons therein.

In Favour:  11.         Against:  1.      Abstentions:  0.  

RESOLVED:   That planning permission be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the following conditions and reasons:

CA31 – Statutory time limit.

1.            The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the application received 1^st November 2017 and in accordance with the associated plans referenced: -

1/1 Site Location Plan, Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations

Reason:  For the avoidance of doubt, in the interests of proper planning and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan Policy G1.