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 | (2) The permission relates solely to the amended plans received on 27 August 2004. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt. |
| 3 | REASON FOR DECISION: Permission is sought to extend 174 Enfield Chase a detached dwelling located within a well established residential area. As such it is considered policies GEN1, GEN2 and H10 provide the basis for the determination of this proposal. These policies seek to achieve development and respect the character and appearance of the area which respects residential amenity and does not compromise highway safety and the crime prevention aims of the Local Plan. The conservatory does not give concern in terms of siting, design or visual amenity and there are no objections to this part of the proposal. Originally a 2.8m high wall was proposed. This has now been reduced in height to 2 metres. The wall is positioned between nos. 176 and 174 Enfield Chase and does not project right to the front of the property. No. 174 Enfield Chase has a full length garage/extension at this side of their property which has no windows. Accordingly there will be no adverse effect on the amenity of this neighbour or the street scene. With respect to the concerns expressed by the occupiers of no. 14 Bramham Down, the wall does not project beyond the main rear wall of 176 Enfield Chase and therefore there will be no adverse effect on this property. |
| 4 | NOTE: Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan Policies GEN1, GEN2 and H10 were relevant to this decision. |
| Address | Date Sent | Date Reconsulted | Expiry Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| R BARRETT 14 BRAMHAM DOWN GUISBOROUGH TS147BY | 16/07/2004 | - | 06/08/2004 |
| 15 BRAMHAM DOWN GUISBOROUGH TS147BY | 16/07/2004 | - | 06/08/2004 |
| 16 BRAMHAM DOWN GUISBOROUGH TS147BY | 16/07/2004 | - | 06/08/2004 |
| 178 ENFIELD CHASE GUISBOROUGH TS147LQ | 16/07/2004 | - | 06/08/2004 |
| COST CONTAINMENT CONSULTANTS 174 ENFIELD CHASE GUISBOROUGH TS147LQ | 16/07/2004 | - | 06/08/2004 |