Agenda item

10 Church Lane, Redmile

Applicant:      Dr and Mrs Lobo

Location:        The Byre 10 Church Lane Redmile NG13 0GE

Proposal:       First floor extension

 

(a)       The Regulatory Services Manager stated that:

A number of messages from 3 neighbours ( 4,8,and 12 Church Lane ) making the following comments:

 

The report is inaccurate and does not give sufficient weight to their concerns and objections about overlooking have not been addressed –    the report ( pages 106-107) addresses key issues of residential amenity and privacy .

 

Consider that proposal is noticeable from Church Lane, contrary to report  – accept that extension would be seen from Church Lane

 

Parking is already a problem –  no evidence that an additional bedroom would make a significant difference to the situation

 

Request that Members visit their properties to appreciate the impact upon them - most of the Committee members have done so

 

Scale is not in keeping

 

Will be overlooked – not significantly and note that roof lights are above head height

Request that PD rights be removed as more windows would exacerbate the situation –  this is a matter for Members to consider , it is not considered an unreasonable request

 

Issue is not loss of view, but loss of light  – understood and addressed in report

 

Difference in levels is an issue - Accept that application site is slightly higher than neighbours

 

Adverse impact upon heritage assets – RSM site is in conservation area and addressed by conservation officer in report ( page 104)

Disruption from building works – this was agreed , it would be inevitable for a limited period

 

Message from applicant – considers that he has done all that he can to minimise impact upon neighbours.    

 

The application seeks planning permission for a first floor extension to form master bedroom/en-suite and dressing room. The proposal as amended measures 0.8 metres in height and spans 10.2 metres across the existing dwelling, providing 2.3 metre high living accommodation at ground floor and 2.2 metre high living accommodation at first floor.  The proposed materials are red reclaimed brick to walls, and existing pantiles will be used for the roof.  The site is located within Redmile and forms part of the designated Conservation Area.

 

It is considered that the main issues relating to the application are:

 

•           The impact of the proposal on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties

•           The visual impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the settlement

 

The impact on  neighbours has been reduced by an amendment which reduced the height of the proposal by 0.5m. It is considered that while there may be some impact upon neighbours to the east ,particularly No.8,this would not have a significantly adverse impact upon the amenities of these neighbours.

 

There would be some impact upon the character and appearance of the area.

 

Members may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to remove PD rights as requested by one of the neighbours.

 

(b)       Cllr Amanda Johnson, on behalf of Barkestone, Plungar and Redmile Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           The location plan is about 25 years out of date and there are a lot of buildings which aren’t on the plan.

•           Large number of objections.

•           Lack of parking.

•           Overintense and overdevelopment.

•           Impact on residential amenity.

•           Volume of property when originally built was of concern. Was a 4 bedroom property with a snug. This would increase in bedrooms to 5 and 6 if the snug was to be used as a bedroom.

•           A 5 bedroom property would need 4 parking spaces. This only has 2.

•           Some houses nearby have no off road parking. Some park on the path as it is a narrow lane.

•           Conservation area. It does not preserve or enhance the character of the area.

•           Material parking matters. Already covers 50% of the plot.

•           Double storey will cause considerable harm to neighbours.

•           Loss of sunlight and views to the sky.

•           Congested plot.

•           Negative impact.

 

A Cllr asked for clarification regarding the number of bedrooms.

 

The Regulatory Services Manger explained that the current plan shows 3 bedrooms and that the proposal would create a fourth bedroom and noted that anyone can use rooms for any purpose in their property.

 

Cllr Amanda Johnson responded that it was being advertised on right move as a four bedroom property and the snug was called a study on the plan.

 

A Cllr asked for clarification of the number of rooms.

 

Cllr Amanda Johnson responded that there are 2 reception rooms, 4 bedrooms, a kitchen, a bathroom and an en-suite downstairs which was on the snug.

 

Ms Turnball, an objector and speaker, wished to hand photographs out to the Members.

 

The Chair advised that this is not allowed.

 

Ms Turnball expressed that she was disappointed that the planning department didn’t do what they were asked to do.

 

It was confirmed that they were part of the committee slide presentation.

 

(c)        Oonagh Turnbull, on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           It is a heavily congested elevated site.

•           Does not enhance the  character.

•           No public benefits.

•           Conservation officers view is misleading, the buildings are heritage assets.

•           Residential amenity – it is on the boundary of number 8. Would reduce amenity and light. Overbearing and hemmed in.

•           Car parking - No provision has been made and there is no space for this.

•           Access over a shared drive way.

•           Highway impact should be given consideration.

•           Will cause congestion and conflict.

•           Concerns regarding vehicle movements on a congested site in a residential area.

•           Judicial review is likely on the application conservation area law and policy.

 

A Cllr asked if the property was previously a cow shed.

 

Ms Turnball confirmed that it was.

 

A Cllr asked for clarification regarding the road and parking.

 

Ms Turnball responded that it is a narrow road and that cars have to park illegally on the pavement.

 

A Cllr asked to be shown on the presentation slide the properties affected.

 

Ms Turnball pointed out the shared drive and various properties surrounding.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services noted that officers needed to consider conservation law and policy further and wished to change their recommendation to allow this.

 

Cllr Rhodes proposed to defer the application as per the officers recommendation.

 

Cllr Wyatt seconded the proposal.

 

A vote was taken. The Members voted unanimously to defer.

           

Determination: DEFERRED to review the consideration of conservation law and policy