Plans for large extension to Peterborough house refused

The property at 120 Padholme Road in Eastfield is owned by Mr Hussain, who argued his case before members of Peterborough City Council’s Planning and Environmental Protection Committee on Tuesday.

“There are many houses on Padholme Road with extensions similar to the one I am proposing,” said Mr Hussain. “I do not see why mine has been singled out for refusal in this way.”

The application site comprises of a two-storey residential dwelling which forms the eastern side of a pair of semi-detached houses set back slightly from the road.

Mr Hussain owns both properties - having lived at number 122 originally he now rents it out to a family member while he lives next door.

The application proposes a two-storey side and first floor rear extension, as well as a single storey rear extension.

“This would give the appearance of a terraced-roof property,” explained Nick Harding, the council’s head of development and construction.

“As there are no terraced roofs in the area, and the gap between the new extension proposed and the neighbouring property would be less than 30cm, officers are recommending refusal on the basis of size, scale, its siting and form (terraced roofline).”

Cllr Christian Hogg received confirmation from Mr Hussain that he does own the house next door, which will bear the most direct impact from the proposed alterations.

Cllr Peter Hiller asked Mr Hussain: “Why do you feel that this proposal does not give a terraced roof effect?”

Mr Hussain responded: “It may well be terraced as you call it, but it cannot be seen from the road, the only effect would be at an angle of 20 degrees in the back garden of No 116.”

“However, if it will help, I am willing to expand the gap between the two properties from 50cm to 1m.”

Chairman Cllr Chris Harper interjected: “I’m sorry Mr Hussain but that is not a consideration before this committee today, and if you want to alter or amend the designs you will have to come to us with those at a later date as what you have said cannot influence the decision we have before us.”

Cllr Brian Rush asked Mr Hussain “if the reduction in the gap between the two properties would still allow a motor vehicle to be parked in the proposed car port?” but Cllr Harper, taking advice from the legal officer, said: “This is not something we can look at or change at this stage.”

Cllr Hogg said: “I do think that I would feel different about this application if there were a different owner next door”, but Cllr Hiller responded: “The ownership or otherwise of the house next door has no bearing at all on this application.

“I too would feel more amenable to the proposal if the gap were widened, but having seen the property and looked at the plans I feel I must go with the planning officers recommendations this time and refuse. This is simply an extension too far.”

Cllr Dennis Jones and Cllr Graham Casey both agreed with Cllr Hiller, stating that the level of extension is a high density zone is just too much for the area.

Members voted unanimously to refuse the application.