As this is a householder application, in the event of an appeal against a refusal of planning permission, which is to be dealt with on the basis of written representations, any representations made about this application will be sent to the Secretary of State, and there will be no further opportunity to comment at appeal stage.
The application is available for inspection online and at the offices of Planning Services, Development Management, Seafield House, Kirkleatham Street, Redcar, TS10 1SP. The offices are open from 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Thursday and 8.30am to 4.30pm on Friday.
Please note that all comments received in respect of planning applications will become background papers (as defined in the Access to Information Act 1985) and accordingly will be available for public inspection. You should be aware that by making a representation you are consenting to your name and address being included in the planning file, which is open to public inspection. Full details of our Privacy Notice regarding how we collect and use personal information, is available on the Council’s website.
| # | Condition Details |
|---|---|
| 1 | (1) The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of this permission. REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
| 2 | REASON FOR DECISION: This property is situated close to the head of a cul-de-sac where the next property (number 8) is set off at an angle and slightly behind the application site. The principle consideration with regard to this proposal is the impact this two storey extension will have on the living conditions of that neighbour. The extension has been designed to replicate the existing features of the dwelling, incorporating a reduced hipped roof with the front set back to reduce its impact in the street scene and in relation to the neighbouring property. 8 The Roseway being set back and at an angle lessens the impact of this scheme as it effects the side elevation of the objectors house who has a living room window situated to the rear of his gable end which will be approximately 6m from the single storey element at the rear. I do not consider the extension will impact on that window. Similarly a landing window exists at first floor which does not directly face onto the extension and allied to the fact that it is not a principle window no loss of amenity will occur. The relationship of the lounge bay window at the front is such that you are required to stand in the bay and turn your head before the proposal comes into view and then would be seen as a continuation of the original part of the house. I do not believe we could substantiate a refusal on the grounds of effect on this window. The applicants house and the objectors garage already create a shadow across the objectors rear garden and this proposal will not make the situation any worse. |
| 3 | NOTE: Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan Policies GEN1, GEN2 and H10 were relevant to this decision. |
| Address | Date Sent | Date Reconsulted | Expiry Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 LAUREL CLOSE SALTBURN-BY-THE-SEA TS121JA | 04/06/2004 | - | 25/06/2004 |
| 5 LAUREL CLOSE SALTBURN-BY-THE-SEA TS121JA | 04/06/2004 | - | 25/06/2004 |
| 10 THE ROSEWAY SALTBURN-BY-THE-SEA TS121JB | 04/06/2004 | - | 25/06/2004 |
| 4 THE ROSEWAY SALTBURN-BY-THE-SEA TS121JB | 04/06/2004 | - | 25/06/2004 |
| 5 THE ROSEWAY SALTBURN-BY-THE-SEA TS121JB | 04/06/2004 | - | 25/06/2004 |
| J J SAVIN 8 THE ROSEWAY SALTBURN-BY-THE-SEA TS121JB | 04/06/2004 | - | 25/06/2004 |