Core Planning Reasoning
The proposed development is considered consistent with the residential zoning of the area and would not seriously injure the visual or residential amenities of the property or its neighbors; consequently, several restrictive planning conditions and financial contributions were deemed unnecessary or incorrectly applied.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- Condition 2, which required a reduction in height and depth of the front extension, should be omitted as the proposed scale is reasonable and necessary for energy efficiency/construction requirements.
- Condition 7 regarding surface water drainage contributions is contradictory to Condition 5 and should be removed since surface water is to be managed on-site via a soakaway.
- Financial contributions under Conditions 8 and 9 should be amended to reflect the specific additional floor area of 12.7 sq. m, as the Planning Authority failed to justify the higher amounts originally sought.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Objective A (Residential Amenity)Chapter 12 Development ManagementSection 12.3.7.1 Extensions to DwellingsSection 12.3.2.2 Sustainable Neighbourhood InfrastructureDLRD Development Contribution Scheme 2016-2020
Decision Document Summary
The application at 94 Braemor Road, Churchtown, involves a 12.7 sq. m front extension and attic modifications. The Planning Authority initially granted permission but attached restrictive conditions (Condition 2) and several financial levies. Neighbors at Nos. 92 and 96 expressed concerns regarding overshadowing and the 'obtrusive' nature of the flat-roofed extension. However, the Inspector found that the orientation of the site and the presence of high boundary hedges would prevent significant ...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.
PDF Document Missing
The original decision document for this case could not be linked. This often happens for older cases or those with restricted documentation.
Search for case on ABP