Issue - meetings

An objector attended the committee and spoke against the application.  The application was, in his opinion, contrary to policy DS5 of the local plan.  Local neighbours would suffer a loss of privacy and natural light.  The application was not sympathetic to the needs of residents.  It would fundamentally alter the street scene and character of Tee Lane.  Neighbours were also concerned that there were no restrictions in place on the hours builders could work on the site.

The applicant’s agent addressed the committee and confirmed that the development site was the last existing detached property on the road to have an extension.  Tee Lane consisted of large, detached houses which varied significantly in terms of scale and appearance.  The impact that the north gable wall would have on the immediate neighbours was negligible.  Granting the application would not impact on the street scene and no neighbouring properties would be overlooked or suffer from a loss of amenity.

Councillor E Marper, local ward member spoke against the application.  The application would, in her opinion, have a detrimental impact on the street scene.  The application would result in the site looking like a row of terrace houses.  The extension was excessive and not in keeping with neighbouring properties.  The application should be refused due to its height and scale.  It would be overbearing and overshadow neighbouring properties.  It was therefore contrary to policies DS1 and DS5.

Councillor J Davison confirmed that the site visit was extremely informative as it allowed members to view the property in its current state, as well as its proximity to neighbouring properties.  The application was an improvement but needed to be more sympathetic and not as big.

It was then moved by Councillor Davison and seconded by Councillor C Sherwood –

That the application be refused for the following reasons –

1.

The proposed extensions, by virtue of their height, scale and massing, and proximity to neighbouring properties, would result in unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impacts that would be detrimental to the residential amenity rights of adjoining neighbours, contrary to policies DS1 and DS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Motion Carried