significant overshadowing from the gable and boundary fence of the applicant’s property, and the proposal is unlikelyto make this situation significantly worse. During construction work there will inevitably be an element of inconvenience to neighbouring properties through noise, dust, and traffic movement although this inconvenience is only for a relatively short period of time. Any public nuisance created would be controlled by separate legislation administered by the Protective Services Section. Submitted plans do not show any windows on the gable of the extension facing the objector’s property therefore there will be no impact in terms of privacy. Any perceived adverse effect on the view from a neighbouring property is not a material planning consideration unless it accounts to a loss of amenity or it involves overlooking or loss of privacy. Due to the positioning of the two properties both gable windows at No. 17 look onto the existing gable at No. 15. The ground floor side facing living room
window currentlyfaces onto a 2 metre high boundary fence.
The materials to of the existing
be used on the extension are to match, both
texture, those the value of
neighbouring property is not a material planning consideration. It is accepted that the proposed parking provision within the front garden standard compared to what is normally required. In particular, although 2 car
is sub- parking
spaces are shown on submitted plans, it is comfortably within the front garden area.
unlikely that 2 cars could be accommodated However, there is no restrictive planning
condition placed on the applicant could
the property is respect of in-curtilage car parking spaces therefore erect a side extension under their permitted development rights
and although not standard parking
an ideal layouts.
situation, the Council has in the The movement of work vehicles
past accepted such sub- to and from the property
during construction is not a material planning consideration. The issue of access to the objector’s property by construction workers resolved by the proprietors and is not a material planning consideration.
In conclusion, due consideration has been given to the points raised, as discussed above, by the objectors at No.17 Stonehaven Crescent in relation to sunlight/daylight, amenity parking and privacy. Any adverse impacts are likely to be minimal and any detriment would be insufficient to merit a refusal. The proposed design is considered acceptable and will integrate satisfactorily
with the existing granted subject to
dwellinghouse. the appropriate
It is therefore conditions.