Controversial Peterborough home extension approved by councillors

Members of Peterborough City Council have approved an application for an extension on a house in Westwood Park Road, despite an angry and impassioned appeal from a nearby neighbour.

Before the extraordinary meeting of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee (February 8) had even begun, a challenge was made from the public to try to prevent Cllr Mohammed Jamil, who normally sits on this committee, from speaking even though he is the ward councillor.

After taking advice from the council Legal Officer, Chair, Cllr Chris Harper ruled that Cllr Jamil had every right to speak saying: “Cllr Jamil is not on the committee today, he’s addressing us in favour of the application as the ward councillor and he has to represent the people he feels he wants to represent.”

Speaking to members Mr Richard Perkins (nearby neighbour) said: “Many of the objections that I have brought before this committee previously still remain, and while I am not against the applicant developing his property and my cooperating as a neighbour, despite two requests there has been no contact at all by anybody on his side – so he is the one who has chosen this confrontation, and that is why we’re all here today.

“This new application impacts on my amenities, and I am surprised to see planning officers have accepted it when under the previously rejected plans the extension was 3.2m high, but now it has risen to 3.3m high when planning precedents are set at 2.4m high.

“The boundary fence is just 23cm from my ground-floor extension – this plan is so overbearing in terms of its height, scale and proximity to my property that as such it totally impacts on my family amenities and our use of our property as near neighbours.

“This was the grounds for rejection of the previous application, so I ask the committee to use that again and refuse this application.”

The property at No.40 Westwood Park Road, Peterborough is owned by Mr Mohammed Imran who elected not to speak at the meeting.

The application site and adjoining properties at numbers 38 and 42 Westwood Park Road have all been significantly extended in the past close to the site boundaries.

Mr Imran’s application is a resubmission with an amendment to a previous application which was refused in October 2021 on the basis that: “… it would result in significant overbearing impact to the immediate outdoor amenity area and main habitable spaces located to the rear of the property such that unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupants would result.”

Mr Imran chose not to appeal that refusal, but instead took planning officers advice and amended his proposal.

The revised planning proposal sought permission to create an enclosed porch, the removal of the existing garage and summer room replacing them with a ground and first floor rear extension providing an open plan kitchen, dining, and living area.
On the south (towards number 38 Westwood Park Road) this single storey height section of the ground floor rear extension would project up to the line of the rear wall of the existing summer room and to the north (towards number 42) the extension would be cut back from the shared boundary line by 3.43m - the first-floor rear extension would extend by 4.7m providing two ensuite bedrooms. It would have a hipped roof to match the existing dwelling; and loft conversion for two ensuite bedrooms with rooflights.

However, Mr Paul Sharman, Architect and agent for the applicant said: “The one ground for refusal of the previous application has now been addressed and overcome.

“Mr Imran could easily have appealed the decision of the committee at the last application which would’ve cost everybody a lot of time and money; but instead, he chose to listen to the advice given to him by planning officers and then amend the application accordingly.

“We would argue that having altered the application is in line with the recommendations of your own planning officers – done on every step of the way with this new application – you should now grant permission and allow the application to go ahead.”

Cllr Peter Hiller agreed saying: “While I had great reservations about the original application and I understand entirely the concerns of Mr Perkins as a neighbour, the alterations that have been made to the application means that it is now acceptable to our planning officers who are recommending granting the application. I agree with them that we should now do so.”

After some debate the matter was put to the vote and members decided by majority (For 10; against 0; abstain 1) to grant the application.