| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The scale, including height, width and length of the side extension will result in a flank wall on the common boundary that will increase the sense of enclosure to the property to the south [no. 54] and will result in an overbearing and dominating relationship with the neighbouring property also impacting on its northern outlook. The extent of flat roof is out of character with the form and design of the host property. Furthermore, the extension will result in the loss of available parking to the side of the dwelling. |
| 2. | The extension to the front of the dwelling with a flat roof and prominent roof lanterns is out of character with the host property and would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and wider character of the area. The proposal being due south of the adjoining neighbour at no. 50 and extending forward by 3 metres is also considered to result in harm to the amenities of the occupier of the neighbouring dwelling in terms of loss of light, shading and harming the outlook from the nearest habitable front room window. |
| 3. | In combination the extensions are considered to result in over-development of the site and this is reflected in the resultant cramped and prominent parking arrangement proposed within the front garden. This contributes to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposal. |
| 4. | The proposed extensions are contrary to Policies CS09 a, c and e; H9 a, b and c; and Policy A1 b and c; which requires proposals to maintain or enhance the surrounding built form and character; to not significantly adversely affect neighbouring amenity; and not deprive the property of suitable parking.
Furthermore, the proposed development is not reflective of good design and is therefore contrary to good design criteria in paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF]. |
| 5. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): In accordance with the NPPF, in determining this application for planning permission, the Borough Council has approached it in a positive and proactive way and where possible has sought solutions to problems to achieve the aim of approving sustainable development. Unfortunately, despite this, in this particular case the development is not considered to represent sustainable or an acceptable form of development and has been refused for the reasons set out above. |
