| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | Due to the proximity of the extension to the boundary and raised site level, the proposed flank wall extending some 8.7 m in length would have an overbearing impact on the neighbour to the north at 167 Church Road. As the extension is full height at the eaves and due south of the neighbouring property, this also increases the amount of overshadowing to an extent which would be harmful to neighbouring amenity - especially to the rear habitable rooms of no.167 Church Road and their outside private rear garden area. This is contrary to GYBC Local Plan Policies CS09 f) and A1 b) and c) which seeks to protect the amenity of existing residents. |
| 2. | In terms of amenity of existing/future residents of the property, the reduction in size of functional private amenity space as a consequence of the siting of extension and vehicle parking is not considered acceptable to serve the needs of what will become a 4 bed family house and would result in a cramped form of development out of character with the density of other larger homes in the locality and not providing a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, contrary to paragraphs 124 d) and 130 f) of the NPPF. Furthermore it deprives the enlarged dwelling of at least one required parking space and as a whole the proposal does not provide suitable amenity for the resulting scale of use as required by GYBC Local Plan Policies H9 c) and CS9 a). |
| 3. | The proposal sets the extension back slightly from the principal elevation and with a slightly lower ridge and whilst this allows the form of original dwelling to remain visible from the front, the proposed extension is not subordinate in nature to the main dwelling, largely due to the fact that the extension to the property will comprise almost the full width of the plot at two storey level. This reduces the space/separation between properties which currently contributes to the character and appearance of the area and would further upset the overall visual balance of the terrace as a whole to the detriment of the street scene.
Effort has been made to reduce the scale and massing of the proposal compared with that refused under ref: 06/21/0805/F by introducing a hipped roof form; whilst this reduces the height of the proposal on the boundary with 167 Church Road it introduces a discordant form that is not characteristic of the existing group of terraced properties or the neighbour to the north and fails to maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the building, the terrace as a whole and wider street scene.
The application therefore does not comply with Policies CS09 a) and H9 a) and fails to achieve good design as advocated in paragraphs 126 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] relating to achieving well-designed places. |
| 4. | 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. |
