Jeff Brown BA Dio TP MRTP, Head of Development Control ...

North Warwickshire

Jeff Brown BA Dio TP MRTP,Head of Development Control ServiceThe Council HouseSouth StreetAtherstoneWarwickshireCVg 1DE

Telephone: (01827)7153/.1Fax: (01827) 715225EMail: [email protected]: www.northwarks.gov.uk

Date: 18 December 2012

The Town & Country Planning ActsThe Town and Country Planning (Listed Bulldln$ and

Conservation Areas) Act 1990The Town & Country Planning (G€neral Development)

OrdersThe Town and Country Plannlng (Conilol of

AdvertisemenE) Reguladons 1992 (as amended)

Appfication Ref: PAPl2O12l0527

Borough Council

Mr P BowleyHilton ArchitecturalHilton House215 Long StreetAtherstoneCVg 1AH

DECISION NOTICEFull Planning Application

Site Addresslvy Cottage, Pound Lane, Over Whitacre, Coleshill, Warwickshire,846 2NU

Grid Raf: Easting 424657.6Northing 291846.4

Description of DevelopmenlTwo storey front extension and single storey rear extension

ApplicantMrs C Taylor

Your planning application was valid on 25 October 2012. ll has now been considered by the Council. I caninform you that:

Planning permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than theexpiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON

To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and to prevent an accumulation ofunimplemented planning permissions.

2. The development hereby approved shall not be carried out otheMise than in accordancewith the revised plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 3 Dec€mber 2012 and the 1:500block plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 25 October 2012.

REASON

To ensure that the development is canied out strictly in accordanc€ with the approved plans.

Authorised Officer:

Date:

Page 'l of 4

PA.Pt2012t05273. The new works shall be carried out with facing roofing tiles to match the existing buildingand a light coloured render finish, in cream.

REASON

In the interests of the amenities of the area and the building concerned.

4. No additional opening shall be made other than shown on the plan hereby approved, norany approved opening altered or modified in any manner.

REASON

To protect the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining properties.

INFORMATIVES

1. The submitted plans indicate that the proposed works come very close to, or abut neighbouringproperty. This permission does not convey any legal or civil right to undertake works that affectland or premises outside of the applicant's control. Care should be taken upon commencement andduring the course of building operations to ensure that no part of the development, including thefoundations, eaves and roof overhang will encroach on, under or over adjoining land without theconsent of the adjoining land owner. This planning permission does not authorise the carrying out ofany works on neighbouring land, or access onto it, without the consent of the owners of that land.You would be advised to contact them orior to the commencement of work.

2. You are recommended to seek independent advice on the provisions of the Party Wall etc. Act1996, which is separate from planning or building regulation controls, and concerns giving notice ofyour proposals to a neighbour in relation to party walls, boundary walls and excavations nearneighbouring buildings. An explanatory booklet can be downloaded atwww.communities.qov. uk/oublications/olanninoandbuildinq/partvwall.

3. The Development Plan policies which are relevant to this Decision are as follows:

North Warwickshire Local Plan 2006 (Saved Policies):ENV1 1 - Neighbours Amenities, ENV12 - Urban Design, ENV13 - Building Design, SPG: A Guidefor the Design of Householder Development, September, 2003.

4. In reaching this Decision the Council has worked in a positive and proactive manner wilh the agent,applicant and the neighbour to seek to resolve issues through dialogue and revised plans. As suchthe Council considers it has implemented the requirements set out in paragraphs 186 and 187 ofthe National Planning Policy Framework.

REASONED JUSTIFICATION

The proposal for a two storey fronl extension and rear single storey extension are considered to beacceptable additions to the host dwelling by virtue of their scale and design which arecomplementary to the proportions and cottage style features of the host dwelling. Although theproposed front extension is higher to its eaves and ridge and has a differing roof design to that ofthe previous permission, on balance, the design is not considered to be adverse or out of characteron the street scene by virtue that there is betterment in that the existing lean{o will be replaced.The scale and proportion of the front extension is not oversized compared with the host dwelling,although slightly in excess of the 30% rule is not mnsidered to be disproportionate at 37%, giventhe site lies within a small settlement cluster and is not isolated then there is no harm on theooenness of the Green

Authorised Officer:

Date:

ot 4

PAP1201210527In terms of the neighbour's amenity, the impact of the elitension on the nearest neighbouringoccupier has been weighted. The neighbour's first floor front window faces north and the extensionis at an oblique angle to their window, the 4s-degree line rule is breached at the slope of the roof. ltis considered that given the roof to the extension is hipped with a foMard and a rear roof slope andgiven the use of a light render finish to the walls, then these measures help mitigate the impact onloss of light to the neighbour, such that the impact of the extension is not considered to be harmfulon this neighbou/s amenity. There is no impact on privacy or amenity issues to other nearbyoccupiers. The proposal for the rear single storey extension is to the limitations of permitteddevelopment and would not result in an amenity issue. With all matters considered and given thematerial weight afforded to the extant permission, the proposal is not considered to be in conflictwith the saved Development Plan Policies ENV2, ENVI 1 , ENV12 or ENV13 of the NorthWarwickshire Local Plan. 2006.

APPEALS TO THE SEGRETARY OF STATE

1. lf you are aggrieved by the decision of the Local Planning Authority to grant permission subject toconditions, you can appeal to the Department for Communities and Local Government underSection 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. As this is a decision to refuse planning permission for a householder application, if you want toappeal against your local planning authority's decision then you must do so within 12 weeks of thedate of this notice.

3. Appeals must be made using a form which you can get from the Planning Inspectorate at TempleQuay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BSI 6PN, or online at www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk and www. olanninooortal.oov. uUpcs.

4. The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but he will notnormally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse thedelay in giving notice of appeal.

5. The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to him that the Local PlanningAuthority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could nothave granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, tothe provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order.

6. The Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the Local PlanningAuthority based their decision on a direction given by him.

PURCHASE NOTICES

1. lf either the Local Planning Authority or the Departmenl for Communities and Local Governmentgrants permission to develop land subject to conditions, the owner may claim that he/she canneither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable ofa reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would bepermitted.

2. In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Council in whose area theland is situated. This notice will require the Council to purchase hisiher interest in the land inaccordance with the provisions of Part Vl of the Town and Country Planning Act '1990.

Authorised Officer:

Date:

of 4

PA'P1201210527NOTES

1 . This decision is for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act only. It is not a decisionunder Building Regulations or any other statutory provision. Separate applications may berequired.

2. A report has been prepared that details more fully the matters that have been taken into accountwhen reaching this decision. You can view a copy on the Council's web site via the PlanningApplication Search pages http://www.northwarks.oov.uk/planninq, lt will be described as'DecisionNotice and Application File', Alternatively, you can view it by calling into the Council's Receptionduring normal opening hours (up to date details oi the Council's opening hours can be found on ourweb site http://www.northwarks.qov.uldcontacl).

3. Plans and information accompanying this decision notice can be viewed online at our websitehtto.//www.northwarks.oov.uUolanninq- Please refer to the conditions on this decision notice fordetails of those plans and information approved.

Authorised Officer:

Date:

of tl

OFFICER'S OBSERVATIONS

The Proposal

Decision Date:r6l l l l r t

Decision Code:

rfifi.Notice Type:

Normal / AVCG

a t*o storey front e)ilension and single storey rear extension

Backgroundo The application site is a semi detached coftage located in a small settlement cluster in Pound

Lane, Over Whitacre.o The site is outside of the Development Boundary and is sited wholly within the Green Belt.. The recent history pertaining to the site is a permission in 2010, PAP|2010/0035, which

permitted a one and a half storey front extension in replacement of the siting of the existingconservatory.

r This previous permission is extant and can be implemented; the difference with the newproposal is for a two storey extension rather than a one and a half, effectively the difference indesign is to the first floor and the roof arrangement.

. The proposal is also for a rear single storey extension, which can be carried out under thelimitations of permitted development.

. As the site is located within the Green Belt then consideration is also given to the 30% rule.

Development PlanNorth Warwickshire Local Plan 2006 (Saved Policies): ENV1 1 - Neighbours Amenities, ENV12 - UrbanDesign, ENV13 - Bui lding Design

PAPt2012tl527Pags 1 of I

For Office Use OnlyYes No N/A

Monitorinq completed?lf P.D. removed. email foruarded to Central Services?lf condition monitorinq required, email to Enforcement Team (PG)


Other Relevant Material ConsiderationsGovemment Advice: National Planning Policy FrameworkSupplementary Planning Guidance: A Guide for the Design of Householder Development, September,zuv,J

GonstraintsGreen BeltCoalfield Standing Advice

ConsultationsNeighboursOver Whitacre Parish CouncilSite Notice Expired - 2311 1 | 12

RepresentationsOne of the representations was found not to have been made by the neighbour and therefore can bediscounted as per the neighbour's request, as someone has impersonated the neighbour.

Another representation is from an address point of a different location altogether, the comments ar€ asfollows: At this cottage that I look in doing building works many years ago, there was a well three feetfrom the back of the mttage, I would advise them to check this as it was a deep well.

ObservationsThe proposal for a replacement conservatory extension measures 5.9 metres in length, 5 mehes inwidth, 3.4 metres in height to the eaves and 5.8 metres in height to the ridge of the hipped - Dutch bamroof design. The rear single storey extension, in replbcement of an existing bay window measures 4.2metres in width, 3 metres in projection and 3.5 metres in height to the ridge of the hipped roof.

The existing cottage is presently in a state of disrepair and the improvements to the dwelling areacceptable in principle as it will enable the dwelling to benefit from a better thermal efficiency rating.

Ppl201z0s27Pag€ 2 of 8


The proposed extension two storey extension will replace the siting of the existing conservatory andpart of the original dwelling which comprises of a bathroom and kitchen. lt will extend the front of thedwelling, hence it will be directly noticeable from along the street scene, but it is material in that theexisting permission can be implemented in any case. A comparison illustrates what can beimplemented and the proposa,.

Extant permission

! eroposeo

Volume calculationThe original dwelling has an approximate volume of 205m3. The existing conservatory has extendedthe dwelling by 10%. The existing conservatory and the original bathroom/kitchen to the ground floor isearmarked to be directly replaced by the extension, therefore this volume is reduced off the totalvolume increase of the eltension. The two storey extension is calculated at an addition of 76m3, which

O overall is 37% of the original dwelling.

Fall back positionThe rear extension can be carried out under the limitations of permitted development in any case.

Material considerationThe main material consideration is that the existing permission can be implemented in any case and thedifference between the two schemes is the height and roof shape alterations.

The remainder of the observations will assess the proposal against the relevant saved DevelopmentPlan Policies:

ENV1l - Neighbours AmenitiesThe nearest neighbour to the proposed extensions is at Fir Tree Cottage, Pound Lane:The proposed extension does protrude past the front of Fir Tree Coftage. The nearesl ground floorelement at this neighbours dwelling is a porch. To the first floor there is a bedroom window.

. The extension does breach the 4s-degree rule at its roof level, although the 4s-degree line ruledoes not apply to front windows and only rear windows that serve habitable rooms.

. The assessment of the previous permission considered that although the 4s-degree line rulewas breached by the then proposal, it was not considered to cause a loss of light given that

PAPt201ZO527Page 3 of I

frontside side


firstly, the application site is on a lower lying topography compared to this neighbour's dwelling,secondly, the low eaves and ridge height of the previous extension was a design which wouldnot have caused a loss of light, thirdly, the orientation of the neighbour's front window facesnorth, whereby there is no direct sunlight in any case.Further to this previous assessment, the footprint and ground floor arrangement of the extensionto eaves height is not altered and it is material that the previous permission can be implementedand thus the impact on the neighbour's amenity is only assessed against the impact of theproposed roof arrangement to the neighbour's first floor front window. The difference in the roofarrangement is that of an approved cat slide roof and the proposed Dutch barn hipped roof, thefront gable arrangement has a slightly difierent angle to the pitch and has a raised ridge height.

The assessment on the neighbour's amenity is as follows:o Firstly, the extension is higher than the previous approval, by virtue of the shape of the

roof. Although the proposed roof arrangement does not exceed the ridge height of theoriginal dwelling, the proposed increase is a difference of 0.4 of a metre at eaves heightand 0.8 of a metre at ridge height. The Dutch barn hipped roof is then designed with ahigher side wall, compared to that of the previous catslide design and forms a hip, with asloping forward and rear roof slope. Despite the increase in the height of the elitension, it llis not higher than the original ridge to the main dwelling and is set lower than the ridge -height of this neighbour's dwelling by approximately 0.5 of a metre. Effectively theneighbour's window is looking onto the roof of the extension, albeit from an obliqueangle. As the roof is hipped with a fonarard and rear facing roof slope, this would not beconsidered to adversely result in an impact on the neighbour's amenity.

o Secondly, there is a minimum distance of approximately 3 metres from the mid point ofthis neighbours window to the side building line of the proposed extension, the elitensionis not in direct front view of this neighbours window but to the side. In terms ofconsidering the 4s-degree line rule, then this is slightly breached by the roof of theextension, which is not considered to be a significant breached that would harm amenity,by virtue of the hipped design and slope of the roof.

o Thirdly, the enension would be rendered in a light colour finish up to the eaves. Fromthe perspective of the side elevation nearest to the neighbour, then this will aid inreflecting light and in this case the extension will not appear oppressive. lt is necessaryto condition a cream render finish to the exterior of the extension. to ensure that darkershades are avoided.

o Fourthly, the neighbour's front elevation faces north and does not benefit from directsunlight in any case, such that sunlight would not be affected and the level of daylightwould be the same since light from the north is flat light.

o Based on lhe above considerations the impact of the front extension on this neighboursamenity is not considered to be adverse.

The single storey rear extension does not impact on the 4s-degree line rule from theseneighbours nearest ground floor rear window.There is no impacl on this neighbour in terms of loss of privacy.No reoresentations have been received from this neiohbour.

Oakdene, Pound Lane:. This neighbouring occupier is sited at a sufflcient separation distance from the front extension in

order that there would be no amenity impact in terms of loss of light.. In terms of privacy issues, then the extension is approximately 15 metres from the side wall to

Oakdene.. The application dwelling already has two first floor side bedroom windows, and the extension

will lead to new side dormer window. lt is considered that the dormer side window will not resultin a further unacceptable loss of privacy or amenity beyond what exists from the existing sidedormer windows in the application dwelling.

. The remainder of the new windows to the extension face the highway.PAFt2012t0527

Page 4 of 8


. No representations have been received from this neighbour

Overall the proposal is not considered to result is a loss of amenity, privacy or loss of light that wouldresult an unacceptable impact upon the neighbouring properties. The proposal on balance is notconsidered to be in conflict with saved policy ENVI 1 .

ENV12 - Urban Design. Whilst the proposal is to the front of the dwelling and will be directly noticeable from the street

scene, it is considered not to result in an unacceptable impact upon the street scene beyondthat of the existing permission and can be viewed as betterment since it presents theopportunity to remove the existing lean{o.

. The design along the street scene is a mixture of cottages, a modern dwelling and semFdetached houses. The area is rural and the settlement is a small cluster along this section ofPound Lane.

. lt is considered the proposal is designed in keeping with the existing property; the windows areat eaves height and the dormer have pitched roofs, the proportion of the extension is related tothe host dwelling and continues the cottage style proportions into the extension.

. The design is appropriate for a rural setting, a Dutch hipped roof to the extension is anacceptable roof design and it is not considered out of scale or proportion since the ridge heightto the extension is set slightly lower than the ridge to the host dwelling.

. The proposal does not increase the footprint beyond the extant permission and replaces part ofthe original cottage and that of the unrelated lean to

. The overall design of the extension is acceptable in that the proposal is considered to lead to animprovement upon the existing front el ension to the application dwelling, although slightlylarger in height than the previous permission, the difference in the roof shape is not consideredto be adverse given it still sits within the proportions of the existing height to the original cottage.

. The proposal is considered to comply with the relevant parts of ENV12.

ENV13 - Bui lding Designe The scale and mass of the proposed works is considered to be appropriate and not oversized

compared with the host dwelling.. The materials are proposed to match the existing building, but rather than the use of dark

pink/red render, a light cream will be conditioned.. The volume increase to the original dwelling will be greater than 30% and on balance the

proposed extension equates to 37yo. The rear single storey is not calculated in this cubicvolume since this can be erected in any case.

. Although in excess of 30%, the works are considered to be appropriate and acceptable since itis material in that the existing permission can be carried out in any case, the difference is theshape of the roof with a slight height increase,

. Given that the site is located within a small settlement cluster the ooenness of the Green beltwill not be reduced by the proposal.

. The proposal is not considered to be contrary to this policy.

SPG: A Guide for the Design of Householder Development, September, 2003.. This policy advises on the 30% as a guide on the appropriate size for extensions within the

Green Belt.. The proposal is not felt to be in conflict with the design and ameni$ considerations outlined in

this policy document.. The proposal is not considered to be in conflict with this policy.

ENV2-GreenBel t. The site is in the Green Belt; therefore Policy ENV2 of the Local plan indicates that development

proposals will be considered against Government Guidance as set out in its PPG2. This

PAPt201ZO527Page 5 of8


guidance has now been superseded by the NPPF. As a consequence the wording of policyENV2 has to be considered against the NPPF. This states that the construction of new buildingin the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate.

. There are a number of exceptions listed. One is where the "extension or alteration of a buildingdoes not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building".Disproportionate additions is measured by the 300/o rule as covered in Policy ENVl3 and in theSPG. The SPG identifies an instance where this 30% might be relaxed where the existingbuilding is already located within a group of other buildings. This is because the impact on theopenness of the Green Belt is less likely to be affected if the works are within an existing groupof buildings, rather than at an isolated building. Also as the impact of the extension and existingextension is only 7o/o above the 30% then there is no adverse policy harm.

. On balance the proposal is not considered to be contrary to ENV2 or to the National PlanningPolicy Framework.

Representation:When considering the nature of the representation to the scheme, then the following is considered:

r With regards to the water well, then the method of construction for the rear extension wouldhave to take into consideration the potential issues from a water well. lf the well is sited within athe vicinity of the rear single storey extension then this would be checked at building regulations -stage. Any proposed building would be inspected in terms of its foundations.

. No further issues have been raised or representations received.

SummaryThe proposal for a two storey front extension and rear single storey extension are considered to beacceptable additions to the host dwelling by virtue of their scale and design which are complementaryto the proportions and cottage style features of the host dwelling. Although the proposed front extensionis higher and has a differing roof design to that of the previous permission, on balance, the design is notconsidered to be adverse. The impact of the extension on the neighbouring occupier has beenweighted, it is considered that given the roof is hipped with a foMard and rear roof slope and given theuse of a light render finish to the walls, then these measures help mitigate the impact of the extensionto that of the neighbouring occupier, such that the impact on light is not considered to be harmed fromthe neighbours north facing window. The size of the extensions, although slightly in excess of the 30%rule are not considered to be disproportion ale al37o/o, given the site lies within a small settlementclusler and is not isolated then there is no harm on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal istherefore not considered to be contrarv to the relevant saved Develoomenl Plan Policies.

Local Finance ConsiderationsNiA

Human Rights Act lmplicationsNone

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be Granted Subject to Conditions:

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than theexpiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON

To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and to prevent an accumulation ofunimplemented planning permissions.

P AP t201210527Page 6 of I


2. The development hereby approved shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordancewith the revised plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 3 December 2012 and the1:500 block plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 25 October 20 12.

REASON

To ensure that the development is carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

3. The new works shall be carried out with facing roofing tiles to match the existing buildingand a light coloured render finish.

REASON

In the interests of the amenities of the area and the building concerned.

4. No additional opening shall be made otherthan shown on the plan hereby approved, norany approved opening altered or modified in any manner.

REASON

To protect the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining properties.

Notes

1. The submitted plans indicate that the proposed works come very close to, or abut neighbouringproperty. This permission does not convey any legal or civil right to undertake works that affect landor premises outside of the applicant's control. Care should be taken upon commencement andduring the course of building operations to ensure that no part of the development, including thefoundations, eaves and roof overhang will encroach on, under or over adjoining land without theconsent of the adjoining land owner. This planning permission does not authorise the carrying out ofany works on neighbouring land, or access onto it, without the consent of the owners of that land.You would be advised to contact them orior to the commencement of work.

2. You are recommended to seek independent advice on the provisions of the Party Wall etc- Act1996, which is separate from planning or building regulation controls, and concerns giving notice ofyour proposals to a neighbour in relation to party walls, boundary walls and excavations nearneighbouring buildings. An explanatory booklet can be downloaded atwww.communities.gov.uUpublications/planningandbuilding/partywall.

3. The Development Plan policies which are relevant to this Decision are as follows:North Warwickshire Local Plan 2006 (Saved Policies):ENV11 - Neighbours Amenit ies, ENV12 - Urban Design, ENV13 - Bui lding Design, SPG: A Guide forthe Design of Householder Development, September, 2003.

4. In reaching this Decision the Council has worked in a positive and proactive manner with theagent, applicant and the neighbour to seek to resolve issues through dialogue and revised plans. Assuch the Council considers it has implemented the requirements set out in paragraphs 186 and 187of the National Planning Policy Framework.

PAPt201ZO527Page 7 of 8


Justification

The proposal for a two storey front extension and rear single storey extension are considered to beacceptable additions to the host dwelling by virtue of their scale and design which are complementaryto the proportions and cottage style features of the host dwelling. Although the proposed front extensionis higher to its eaves and ridge and has a differing roof design to that of the previous permission, onbalance, the design is not considered to be adverse or oul of character on the street scene by virtuethat there is betterment in that the existing lean{o will be replaced. The scale and proportion of the frontextension is not oversized compared with the host dwelling, although slightly in excess of the 30% ruleare not considered to be disproportionate at 37%, given the site lies within a small settlement clusterand is not isolated then there is no harm on the openness of the Green Belt.

In terms of the neighbour's amenity, the impact of the extension on the nearest neighbouring occupierhas been weighted. The neighbour's first floor front window faces north and the extension is at anoblique angle to their window, the 4s-degree line rule is breached at the slope of the roof. lt isconsidered that given the roof to the extension is hipped with a forward and a rear roof slope and giventhe use of a light render finish to the walls, then these measures help mitigate the impact on loss of lightto the neighbour, such that the impact of the extension is not considered to be harmful on thisneighbout's amenity. There is no impact on privacy or amenity issues to other nearby occupiers. Theproposal for the rear single storey extension is to the limitations of permitted development and wouldnot result in an amenity issue. With all matters considered and given the material weight afforded to thee)ilant permission, the proposal is not considered to be in conflict with the saved Develooment PlanPolicies ENV2, ENVI 1 , ENV12 or ENV13 of the North Wanrvickshire Local Plan, 2006.

PAPt201Z0527Page I of 8

Jeff Brown BA Dio TP MRTP, Head of Development Control ...

Documents

Transcript of Jeff Brown BA Dio TP MRTP, Head of Development Control ...