X hits on this document

523 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

69 / 141

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

dwellinghouse.

Any

perceived

adverse

colour effect

and on

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

which

would

result

in

the

same

reduction

in

parking

area.

Under

these

circumstances,

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.

requires

to

be

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.

recommended

that

planning

permission

be

Document info
Document views523
Page views523
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 14:13:50 UTC 2016
Pages141
Paragraphs2200
Words35737

Comments