Agenda item

Full Planning Permission

Two storey side and single storey rear extension with internal alterations to form small ancillary (annex) accommodation at ground floor level and additional bedroom with en-suite at first floor level

11 Windsor Crescent  Boston PE21 0HZ

Mr A Adewuyi

Full Planning Permission

Two storey side and single storey rear extension with internal alterations to form small ancillary (annex) accommodation at ground floor level and additional bedroom with en-suite at first floor level

11 Windsor Crescent, Boston PE21 0HZ

Mr A Adewuyi

The Senior Planning Office presented the report and confirmed that the application had been called-in by the ward member Councillor Paul Gleeson who had sited his reasons for the call-in as the size, scale and design of the proposal would result in an overbearing impact on the locality and neighbouring properties and it would also request in an inappropriate and un-neighbourly form of extension.

The site consisted of a two-storey, semi detached dwelling located on the western side of Windsor Crescent and was in a residential location in the settlement of Boston.   The triangular corner plot was of a generous size with space for several vehicles to park on the site.  The proposal sought permission to erect a two-storey rear extension with internal alterations to create a small annexe at ground level and an additional bedroom with en-suite at the first-floor level. 

The site had been subject to two previous applications, the first being for a proposed single storey flat roofed extension where prior approval had not been required.  The second application had been for a two-storey side and single storey rear extension with internal alterations to form ancillary (annex) accommodation at ground floor level and additional bedrooms at first floor level.  That application had been refused and the current application sought to address the reasons for that refusal.

A number of objections from neighbouring residents had been tabled including concerns in respect of parking issues, potential unlawful future use, noise disturbance and a loss of natural light to a neighbouring property and a loss of existing trees.

On having assessed the proposed development and site and having taken into consideration the amended design following the previous refusal of B/24/0037, it was considered that the proposed development had addressed the previous reasons for refusal and would not have any adverse impacts upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings, highway safety and flood risk and drainage and Biodiversity Net Gain.

Representation was received from the Ward Member which included:

Members were advised that the property subject to the planning application was a 1950s brick and tiled semi-detached house built by the local authority as part of the Woad Farm development.  The property was in a block of houses that curved around the crescent which meant that the frontages were narrower than you would normally find on Woad Farm and as such reduced the amount of on road parking, making parking very difficult. Whilst the application was proposing two off-street car parking places the access to those would remove on street parking which would not help the situation.

The property had been subject to three recent planning applications, the first having been to build a second house on the site which had been withdrawn by the applicant.  The second application had been for a large rear and side extension that would have created a dwelling house with 10 rooms and 4 bathrooms and a kitchen.  That application had been refused on delegated powers.  The current application had reduced the footprint of the extension but was still forming a dwelling house with eight rooms, four-bathroom shower rooms and a kitchen.  The ward members acknowledged that the revised plan had addressed the issue of the view of the stump from the road, however disagreed with the officers in that it remained too large an extension for the type of house the location and would impact badly on the neighbouring properties enjoyment of their property.  In conclusion the ward member advised that when they had called in the application, they had received an email from the planning department providing further details and asking if they would withdraw the call-in.  In response to that request the ward member noted their response had been to questions whether the occupation of the annex would be conditioned.  No reply had been received to that question and as such they remained unclear whether the occupation of the proposed annex would be restricted to the immediate family of the occupiers of the main house.

Member questions of the ward member followed which included:

Referencing the large driveway a member questioned the concerns of the ward member in respect of parking.  The ward member advised that with the potential number of inhabitants the driveway would not accommodate all the potential vehicles and with the road being very narrow at the part, parking issues on the road could arise.

A member further queried the boundary between the boundary between the two properties with another member questioning if no. 13 was an extended house and also suggesting a fence be installed along the boundary to separate the two houses.  The ward member noted he could not offer any comment to the questions tabled.

At this point in the proceedings the ward member left the meeting.

Confirmation on questions tabled by members to the ward member was provided by the Senior Planning Officer.  Member were advised that the boundary was along the hedge line between the two properties aligned to the pillar between the two gates.  No. 13 had not been subject to an extension it was an end of terrace property. 

Committee deliberation followed which included:

There was little deliberation with a review of a slide being provided for one members’ reference.  A further member stated they felt that the applicant had returned with a sensible plan and whilst there could be possible encroachment with vehicles, members needed to remember that many properties nowadays had multiple cars resulting in them having to park on the road.

RESOLVED:

That the committee approve the application in line with the officer recommendation subject to the following conditions and reasons: