Agenda item

10 Church Lane, Redmile

Applicant:      Dr and Mrs Ben Lobo

Location:        The Byre, 10 Church Lane, Redmile

Proposal:       First floor extension

 

(a)       The Applications and Advice Manager advised that:

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.  The application is re-presented following deferment on 9 November 2017, the application was deferred in order to re-examine potential conservation issues, these are addressed within the report which concludes that there is no adverse impact upon the surrounding Conservation Area.

 

(b)       Cllr Ian Lowther, from the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Overdeveloped

•           Impact on Conservation Area

•           Not currently 3 bed, at least 4 bed

•           More parking needed than 2 spaces

•           Street parking already under pressure on Narrow Lane

•           Impact on conservation area substantial

•           Proposal hasn’t changed however harm has changed from less than substantial to non substantial

•           Increase in street parking

•           Adverse affect on neighbours – number 8 most affected

•           Blocks out light

•           NPPF states harm should be weighed against benefits – no benefits

 

A Cllr asked if there was a problem for ambulances etc. to access.

 

Cllr Lowther stated that a resident had a heart attack and it took the ambulance approximately 20 minutes to get to them as it had to reverse down the street.

 

(c)        Clare Chantrey, an objector, was invited to speak, and stated that:

•           Anomaly to report – previously reported less than substantial harm and now reports no harm, but the application has not changed

•           Harm should be balanced against benefits – there are no benefits

•           Harm to historic building and heritage asset

•           Residential amenity affected

•           Height affects access to natural light

•           Overbearing

•           Not enough car parking spaces

•           Strain on already insufficient situation

•           Worsen character of conservation area

•           Impact on all neighbours

 

(d)       Mr Ben Lobo, the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Reduced height

•           Repositioned working with consultation

•           Not overshadowing or overlooking

•           Minimum impact on light – tall trees are more impactful

•           Not trying to change use

•           Primarily a bungalow

•           Built in materials in keeping with area

•           2 curtilage car parking spaces which comply with requirements

•           Willing to accept condition limiting spaces

•           Not as dense as over properties

 

A Cllr asked for clarification on whether the property would be sold.

 

Mr Lobo stated that it could be but the family would like to stay in the property.

 

The Chair asked if the property was sold subject to contract.

 

Mr Lobo confirmed it was but this should not be a planning consideration.

 

A Cllr was concerned that Redmile was bad for parking and asked where the figure 2.75 spaces had come from.

 

Mr Lobo stated that the policy says a 4 bed house should have 2.75 curtilage.

 

A Cllr asked if a 4/5 bed dwelling needs 3 off road spaces.

 

The Applications and Advice Manager (LP) stated that current decision guidance advises 2 spaces for 3 bed, rising to 3 spaces for 4 bed.

 

(e)       Cllr Byron Rhodes, the Ward Cllr, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           3 spaces for 4 bed dwelling

•           Sold subject to contract

•           Over intensification

•           Unsuitable

•           Difficult to get down Church Lane

•           Conservation area – restrict development and keep area in order

•           Poor decision to allow extension

 

The Applications and Advice Manager (LP) stated that the report had changed from less than substantial harm to no harm because the site had been revisited and reassessed. Highways were consulted directly on car parking.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that there needs to be special regard to the character of the conservation area. If harm is identified and rated as less than substantial this needs to be weighed against public benefits – there are no public benefits to this application. Harm to the Conservation Area is a physical manifestation and the key facility to judge this is the site visit, so Members can see what the proposal would look like and what impacts there are.

 

Cllr Chandler proposed to refuse the application as it is over-intensive and there is a lack of parking. There is a colossal impact on neighbours.

 

Cllr Baguley seconded the proposal to refuse and stated there is an impact on residential amenity, insufficient parking spaces, and the area is short of single storey dwellings.

 

A Cllr stated that it would destroy the Conservation Area and it would no longer look like a byre with a second storey. It is unsafe and there are bad parking facilities.

 

A Cllr stated that they supported refusal and had concerns on over-intensification of an already congested area. Car parking is insufficient.

 

The Chair stated that he supported refusal and asked if wording of there being no public benefits could be added to the proposal.

 

Cllr Chandler stated that she was happy to include this.

 

A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided that the application should be refused.

 

Determination: REFUSED, for the following reasons:

 

1.  The  proposal  represents  over  intensification  of  the  site  out  of  keeping  and  harmful  to  its surroundings  resulting  in  the  unacceptable  loss  of  residential  amenity  to  the  neighbouring dwellings  by  virtue  of  loss  of  light  and overbearing.  The  development  would  therefore  be contrary to policies OS1 and BE1 of the adopted Melton Local Plan 1999 and policy D1 of the emerging Melton Local Plan 2011-2036

 

 2.  The development would result in an increased demand for car parking in a location where it is currently under provided and results in on street car parking to the detriment of road safety. It would therefore be contrary to policies OS1 and BE1 of the adopted Melton Local Plan 1999 and  policy D1 of the emerging Melton Local Plan 2011-2036

 

 3.  The  development  would  result  in  harm  to  the  character  and  appearance  of  the  Redmile Conservation Area by virtue of its discordant form in relation to the exiting building. The harm to the Conservation  Area not outweighed by any public benefit, contrary to the Principles of the NPPF in particular Chapter 12, para 134 and Policy EN13 of the emerging Melton Local Plan  2011-2036 .