Advertising
 
Posted by: John Brace | 20th July 2011

Planning Committee 19th July 2011 – APP/11/00449 – 24 DIBBINSDALE ROAD, BROMBOROUGH, CH63 0HH – Rear 1st floor extension Part 2

The petitioner continued by saying she was against the size and close proximity. She said planning permission had been relaxed for large families, but that was not the case here. In her view less regulation had led to a “build anything you like” if there was “similar in the area”. She couldn’t think of anything that obstructed light and privacy locally to this extent and asked, “Where would it end?”

She said the rules don’t apply to detached property, but if had been a semi-detached they would be required to stick to 2.5m. She said if they lived in a semi-detached property it would not be allowed as it would be too close and the length was a problem as well. The petitioner said there needs to be a detached rule. She asked “Why it was ok, why had they been disregarded and what would it take for the regulations to change?” so that “things can be changed a little”.

The Chair asked if the applicant was present. He was and introduced himself as Tim Swan of 24 Dibbinsdale Road. He said he had lived there since July 1994 and it had been in a poor state and needed updating. In 1999 there had been an extension, the proposal was for 3/4 bedrooms, 165 Sq m and a garage. He hoped to build on top of the first floor with 31 Sq m. The plot was 500 Sq m, this occupied 125 Sq m. He was proud he had developed and maintained the property for over seventeen years. His children had attended local schools. However it “doesn’t meet the needs of the family”. He wanted to ensure the property met the future needs.


Categories