Core Planning Reasoning
The development is visually obtrusive and out of character with the Z2 Residential Conservation Area, constitutes overdevelopment with inadequate private open space, and is supported by inaccurate documentation that fails to describe the true extent of demolition and fabric loss.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The first-floor attic extension is visually dominant and fails to be subordinate to the host dwelling, detracting significantly from the character of the period terrace and the Z2 conservation area.
- The development results in a serious deficit of private open space for a dwelling of this scale and creates unacceptable overlooking issues for neighboring properties.
- The public notices and drawings are fundamentally inadequate as they do not accurately reflect the scale of development or the substantial loss of original period fabric that occurred on-site.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Z2 Land Use ZoningSection 14.7.2Chapter 11 (Built Heritage)Chapter 15 (Development Standards)Appendix 18 (Residential Extensions)Policy BHA9Policy BHA10Policy BHA11Section 11.5.3Table 18.1Section 15.11.3
Decision Document Summary
The applicant sought retention permission for a two-story 100sqm rear extension and roof modifications at No. 265 South Circular Road, a single-story period cottage within a Z2 Residential Conservation Area. The Inspector found that the original cottage had been substantially demolished behind the front facade, a fact not adequately disclosed in the application. Key arguments for refusal include the extension's excessive height and bulk, which fails to respect the symmetry of the terrace; the fa...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