Agenda item

The Committee gave consideration to the last application of the evening, application number 142495 for ground floor extension to form garage, together with first floor extension above at 43 Pingle Close Gainsborough Lincolnshire. There were no updates from the Officer and the Chairman invited the Democratic and Civic Officer to read aloud the statement provided by the applicant. She read aloud as follows:

“I have written this note in support of our planning application 142495- 43 Pingle Close, Gainsborough.

We are proceeding with this application because it has received the full support of our neighbour and we would have amended the plans or withdrawn our application if this was not the case, as we would not want to do anything that they were not happy with.

Our neighbour’s garden is north facing and as shown within the light Survey modelled by our agent, it shows that our current property already casts a shadow over our neighbours garden in its current form and the shadowing effect of the proposed extension on the neighbour’s garden is minimal, and the proposal does not cast a shadow on their property at all.

In respect to LP26, there is no "Overlooking" impact from our proposed extension and as already mentioned there is no “Loss of Light” impact on the building and minimal impact on the bottom of the garden towards the end of the day. We have endeavoured to limit any impact from “overshadowing” by not proposing an extension that is built right up to the boundary and have instead moved the wall some c.1450mm away from the fence line.

LP26 provides guidance on the areas that should be considered, but it does not provide any objective criteria by which these areas should be measured and therefore there is a degree of subjectivity to the concerns raised by the planning officer, which are not shared by Myself, My agent and most importantly by the homeowner of the only property impacted by our proposed extension, being No 41, who have recorded their support for our application on two separate occasions. Based on these points I hope that you will be able to approve our application.

Mr Michael Redwood - Homeowner and Applicant”

The Chairman enquired whether the application would have been presented to Committee had the application not been an Officer or relation to the Council. The Interim Planning Manager (Development Management) explained that it was an unusual situation in that there was definite support from the neighbouring property, however on balance it would have been determined under delegated powers.

Members of the Committee expressed uncertainty as to whether the application should be refused or granted, given the level of support from the neighbouring property. It was felt that the impact of the proposed extension on the neighbour’s land was a risk for the current homeowners to consider. It was accepted that there would be a loss of amenity however with no objections to the proposal, there was a lack of consensus as to whether the application should be granted or refused.

The Legal Advisor advised Members that in making such decisions, planning policy indicated that consideration should be based on whether there was a loss of amenity or not, rather than whether there was support for the application or not.

With no further comments from the Committee, the Chairman moved the Officer recommendation from the Chair. Having been seconded, the Chair took the vote. With 7 for, 3 against and 2 abstentions, planning permission for application number 142495 was REFUSED.