A DALTON family has had plans for a house extension refused by the council.

Father-of-three Jason Durkin, of Romney Park, applied for planning permission for a two-storey side extension.

But Barrow council’s planning committee refused on the grounds of a technicality.

The application was discussed at a meeting in the town hall.

It heard that Mr Durkin planned to create a fourth bedroom, second bathroom and a larger kitchen at the three-bedroom semi-detached property.

However, the property could not be extended in front or above so the obvious solution was to extend out to the side.

The applicant agreed to reduce the height of the extension following concerns from a neighbour who then withdrew their initial objection, the meeting was told.

However, planners remained concern about a loss of daylight on the neighbouring bungalow.

Principal planning officer Charles Wilton recommended the application be refused.

“The issue  is about natural lighting to a bedroom in the adjacent bungalow,” he said. “There’s a basic test we apply in these cases and it’s accepted that it fails that initial test.”

Mathematical calculations had been submitted by the applicant to show that the “predicted harm” would not arise. But Mr Wilton said the council had been advised that the calculations fell short of the expected format.

They were done with pen and paper, rather than on a computer software, he said. Mr Wilton added that the extension was considered “overbearing” and created a sense of “enclosure” on the neighbouring bungalow.

Planning committee member Cllr Rory McClure called for the decision to be deferred for further information and the lighting issue to be resolved.

“I don’t think it’s overbearing, to be honest. I would vote to go against the decision or defer for more information about the lighting,” said Cllr McClure, the Conservative councillor for Roosecote.

“One side says it’s right, the other side says it’s wrong. We really need confirmation.”

Panel member Cllr Bill McEwan suggested a site visit to the property.

Mr Wilton advised the committee to accept the recommendation for refusal.

“If the recommendation is accepted it’s open to the applicant to submit revised calculations,” he said. “I personally don’t see a lot to be gained by deferment.”

Cllr McEwan proposed the committee refuse the application and the committee agreed.