Application for a two storey extension and new entrance porch to front (east) elevation.  First floor extension to side (south) elevation and alterations to driveway and boundary wall.

(Ward: Lyddington; Parish: Seaton)

A deputation was received from Mr Simon Ainge, the content of which is included below:

My wife and I have a six month old son and before moving to Main Street last December, we lived around the corner in the village in a new development on West Lane for 5.5 years.

Our current house is in need of modernisation with a list of jobs including new windows, a new heating system, a new kitchen, additional insulation and decorating.  In addition to this the layout is outdated and to become a suitable family home as intended we really need an extra bedroom and a larger kitchen.

A planning application was submitted earlier this year but refused.

Before submitting a new application, I discussed my ideas with a new architect, namely Tony Ansell from Rutland Planning, who suggested before anything was submitted he would approach the planning department with a basic sketch to ensure we were on the right track.  Obviously these opinions are not to be taken as any formal indication of the final result but the meeting was encouraging.

In brief the new plans outlined a proposed extension to the first floor at the rear, an extension to the side and a removal of part of the driveway wall.  It seems that there are two main issues with the proposed plan:

1)    The size of the extension to the side (or front as it is being referred to) and the opinion that it alters the linear form of the current building.

I would ask you to consider that:

-       The extension would be sympathetic to the look of the building which has been extended at least twice in its lifetime.

-       The size of the extension has been reduced twice.  This second application compromised the extension with a footprint reduction of 71% over the original design.  A revision to this application then reduced it by a further 30%.

-       The proposed ridge height of the extension is 1m lower than the existing ridge.

-       The extension would be 12m back from the main highway.

-       The neighbouring properties, in particular no. 11 Main Street do not assist in forming a typical linear building form so please question the significance of this point that the Conservation Officer has raised.

-       The property is well screened from the highway.

-       I would emphasise that all concerns have addressed and the necessary amendments/compromises have been made to the plans in line with Patrick Gear’s email dated 16/09/15 (Schedule 1).  These included, removal of the parapet gable on the side extension, removal of the hipped design of the dormer windows, removal of the new porch design and of course the reduction in the size of the side extension.

2)    What affect does the proposed removal of part of the driveway wall have on the health of the Silver Birch Tree.

I would ask you to consider that:

-       The proposal of removing part of the driveway wall does not require disturbance of anything below ground level.

-       The proposed driveway has worked around the RPA of all of the trees on site.

-       The professional arboriculture report that I commissioned addresses in detail how all of the trees could be protected during works and where the RPA areas are for each tree in relation to the proposed plans.

-       The driveway access onto the main road is uncomfortably tight and although there are traffic calming measures nearby, the concern for safety is also for pedestrians and cyclists not just oncoming motorists.  When in a vehicle pulling out of the drive you are completely blind until you actually encroach on the highway.  My point is that although the current access is existing, it would be more suitable to allow better vision of the traffic on what is now a busier road.

As a closing statement, my agent and I believe that all points of concern have been addressed and amended.  The application and its proposed plans has been driven forward by the positive reactions in dialogue during the process of the Planning Department.  Additional money has then been spent by myself on this basis revising plans and obtaining the requested professional reports in the form of an Ecology report and an arboriculture report.

I read the definition of a conservation area of which I enjoy being a part of and it suggests that ‘It is not the purpose of a conservation area to prevent development but to manage change to reflect the special character of the area.’ ‘It is the character of an area, rather than individual buildings which designation seeks to preserve …’

As a note, unfortunately due to my situation having spent so much time and money on seeking planning approval, I will be forced to file for an appeal if the application is refused today.

RESOLVED

2015/0763/FUL In accordance with the recommendations set out in Report No. 229/2015 Item 1 and the addendum to that report, that this application be REFUSED.

(Tied vote, the Chairman had the casting vote (Procedure Rule 78.3).)