Core Refusal Reason
The proposed development would seriously injure the residential amenities of neighbouring residents through overlooking and overshadowing, fails to provide adequate private open space for both existing and proposed dwellings, and would set an undesirable precedent for similar harmful development in the area contrary to Section 12.3.7.5 of the County Development Plan.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The development represents overdevelopment of a constrained site, resulting in substandard private amenity space for both the host and proposed dwellings that falls below mandatory standards.
- The scale and height of the proposals, specifically the three-storey character created by dormer extensions, is out of context with the existing streetscape and would lead to significant overlooking and overshadowing of neighboring properties.
- The narrow, substandard nature of the access lane (cul-de-sac) cannot safely accommodate the additional traffic and parking maneuvers generated, creating a risk to road safety and public domain.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Section 12.3.7.5 Corner/Side Garden SitesSection 12.3.7.7 Infill DevelopmentPolicy Objective PHP19Section 12.3.7 Additional AccommodationSection 12.3.7.1 ExtensionsSection 12.4.8 Vehicle Entrances and HardstandingSection 12.4.8.1 General Specifications for Residential DevelopmentsSection 12.4.8.2 Visual and Physical ImpactsSection 12.8.3.3 Private Open SpaceTable 12.10 Minimum Private Open Space RequirementsSection 12.4.5 Car Parking StandardsTable 12.5 Parking RequirementsSection 12.4.8.3 Front Garden Landscaping/SuDSSection 13.1.2 Transitional Zonal Areas
Decision Document Summary
The application at No. 1 Airfield Drive, Churchtown, seeks permission for the demolition of an existing side extension, the construction of a new two-storey extension with attic conversion to the original semi-detached house, and the creation of a new two-storey, two-bedroom detached dwelling in the side garden. The 0.032ha site is located in an area zoned Objective 'A' (protecting/improving residential amenity) and is accessed via a narrow cul-de-sac. The Inspector argues that the subdivision c...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