Planning Committee - 2nd July 2013 - Newark and Sherwood ...

This open space can reasonably be considered as rear gardens to serve the barns. These are
relatively small, approximately 4.5m at the narrowest point. In addition the ground level within
these gardens is approximately 0.5m lower than the application site. These factors were a major
contributor in the refusal of the previous scheme on the grounds that it would be overbearing to
the occupiers of the barns.
The scheme submitted for consideration in this instance has however reduced the scale of the
extension from the refused scheme by 1.3m in height and 0.8m in width. Based on the approved
fenestration details for the barn conversions, in particular a lack of first floor windows (albeit there
are approved roof lights), it is considered that the proposed extension, by virtue of its lower
height, would be less prominent from the ground floor level which it is likely to be viewed at.
Although it is conceded that the pitch would be visible from the rear amenity space of the barns, it
is deemed that this would not amount to an overbearing impact.
Given the higher site levels of Evergreen House (broadly level with the application site) and the
use of the space between the properties as hard standing (members should also note there is a
live planning application for a single storey garage in this space for the occupiers of Evergreen
House) it is not envisaged that the extension will be detrimental to the occupiers of Evergreen
House in terms of overbearing or loss of privacy. This is particularly the case again given the lack of
first floor fenestration on the north east elevation of Evergreen House and that only the top third
of the windows proposed on the south east elevation would be visible above the existing fenced
boundary.
The previous case officer in their delegated report made reference to a potential perception by
neighbouring properties of being overlooked from the full height gable window on the north west
elevation. However, by reducing the proposed pitch height from the previously refused scheme,
the height of the windows has also been reduced. Moreover, owing to the single storey nature of
the proposed extension the ability to look into neighbours’ gardens would be limited.
The outlook from the proposed balcony, although being large enough to walk out onto and indeed
potentially sit out on, would be shielded by the built form of the dwelling to the north west and
the well established boundary treatment to the north east. Notwithstanding this there is a
significant distance between the proposed balcony and private amenity space of the nearest
neighbours to the north east; Old Coach House and The Firs.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I consider that there would be no significant detrimental impact to
neighbouring properties that would warrant a reason for refusal and find that the proposal
accords with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
That full planning permission is approved subject to the following conditions.
01
The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this
permission.
126