Home   Grantham   News   Article

Subscribe Now

Extension to Grantham bungalow 'looks like a warehouse'




Councillors have refused planning approval for a home extension which has already been built.

Members of South Kesteven District Council’s planning committee heard last week that the extension at 78 Denton Avenue, Grantham, is “dominant and oppressive”.

Councillor Adam Stokes, who is also Mayor of Grantham, brought the application to the committee, also saying the scheme was out of keeping with the area and neighbours would lose privacy.

The extension in Denton Avenue. (24838811)
The extension in Denton Avenue. (24838811)

He recommended councillors refuse the retrospective application from Mr J. Askham, which they did.

Margaret Branston, an elderly neighbour, told the meeting she bought her bungalow for its view but now the large extension was blocking daylight.

“It looks like a warehouse,” she said, adding birds, squirrels and hedgehogs lost their habitat from the trees the site once contained.

She also said the neighbour was advised to halt construction but he refused.

Planning consultant Mike Sibthorp, speaking for the applicant, said the extension would not be seen from the street and blamed the situation on “misunderstood permitted development rights”.

He said the extension could easily be screened by climbing plants or shrubs.

Members appeared divided before most voted against the scheme, with a few abstentions.

Coun Rosemary Kaberry-Brown, said: “I don’t think I have ever seen anything as bad as this.

“There’s no way a great wall can take the place of green trees.”

Coun Penny Milnes felt the extension could be screened as suggested.

She noted the 7.5m extension was a few metres outside four metres allowed as a permitted development.

However, Coun David Bellamy warned: “If we accepted this, we are accepting the precedent. It would be used against us time and time again.”

After the meeting, Mr Sibthorp told the Journal he would talk to his client about whether he wanted to appeal.

The Journal approached Mr Askham for comment but he refused.



Comments | 0
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More