Meeting documents

Bath & North East Somerset Council

MEETING:

Area B Development Control Committee

AGENDA
ITEM
NUMBER

MEETING DATE:

3^rd May 2006

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER:

David Davies, Head of Planning Services, (Telephone: 01225 394125)

TITLE:

SITE INSPECTION REPORT.

WARD:

ALL

BACKGROUND PAPERS: See over

AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM

ITEM NO.

APPLICATION NO. and EXPIRY DATE:

APPLICANTS NAME/SITE ADDRESS and PROPOSAL

PARISH:

OFFICER:

REC:

PAGE NO.

01

05/03831/FUL

8^th Feb 06

Oval Homes

Prop Development Adj To 57, Manor Park, Writhlington, Radstock, BA3 3NB

Residential development comprising 3.No three bedroom and 1.No two bedroom dwellings and 1.No flat with associated parking

Norton

Radstock

Andy Ross

106 Agreement/

PERMIT 4-13

02

06/00277/FUL

5^th April 06

Mr & Mrs Brain

North Hill House, Wells Road, Westfield, Radstock, BA3 3RL

Extension and conversion of basement to form day nursery for 15 child places

Norton Radstock

Helen McCabe

REFUSE 13-18

03

06/00438/FUL

30^th March 06

Mrs D Dufore And Mr M Tovey

1 Nine Elms Cottages, Widcombe Common, West Harptree, BS40 6HW,

Provision of a two storey side extension and detached garage

West Harptree

Danijela Karac

REFUSE 18-21

04

06/00450/FUL

13^th April 06

Mr And Mrs A Dando

Beaver Lodge, Cameley Road, Cameley, Bath And North East Somerset, BS39 5AF

Erection of a rear extension, engineering works to accommodate a lower ground floor, the provision of 2 no. dormer windows on the existing rear elevation and a first floor side extension

Cameley

Tim Guymer

REFUSE 21-27

05

05/03985/OUT

27^th March 06

Mr & Mrs D Purnell

Cranmore View, Main Road, Temple Cloud, Bath And North East Somerset, BS39 5DD

Erection of dwelling and formation of visibility splay.

Cameley

Danijela Karac

REFUSE 27-32

06

06/00360/FUL

24^th March 06

Mrs R Withey

The Chalet, King Lane, Clutton, BS39 5QQ,

Detached dwelling after demolition of existing chalet (Resubmission)

Clutton

Danijela Karac

REFUSE 32-35

07

05/04052/FUL

8^th March 06

Mr And Mrs A J Smith

Camburn, Timsbury Road, High Littleton, BS39 6HL,

First floor extension to side, single story extension to front, provision of roof terrace over existing single storey extension to rear and extension of detached garage

High Littleton

Tim Guymer

REFUSE 35-39

08

06/00080/FUL

17 March 06

Mr And Mrs I Kelsey

27 Upper Furlong, Timsbury, BA2 0NN,

Erection of a first floor extension

Timsbury

Vincent Albano

PERMIT 39-42

Item No:01

APPLICATION NO. 05/03831/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 8 February 2006

WARD Radstock

PARISH Norton Radstock

APPLICANT Oval Homes

PROPOSAL Residential development comprising 3.No three bedroom and 1.No two bedroom dwellings and 1.No flat with associated parking

SITE LOCATION Prop Development Adj To 57, Manor Park, Writhlington, Radstock

REASON FOR REPORTING THE APPLICATION TO COMMITTEE:

This application is being reported to committee following a request from Cllr Gay.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The application was deferred from the meeting of the committee on the 5th April 2006 to allow members to visit the site.

This application relates to a site to the rear of 93-99 Frome Road and adjacent to 57 Manor Park in the eastern part of Radstock. The site is located within the defined housing development boundary for the settlement and is outside of the designated Radstock Conservation Area.

A two storey building with pitched roofs is proposed that would contain five units of residential accommodation. The proposed units would comprise 3.No three bed dwellings, 1 No. two bed dwelling and a one bedroom flat. Each of the proposed four main dwellings would have an area of private garden space to the rear. Car parking is provided to the rear of the proposed building and is accessed through an archway from Manor Park. Parking is proposed as two spaces for each dwelling and one for the flat. A bin/cycle store is proposed in the South West corner of the site providing bin storage for the flat and secure cycle parking for the whole development.

The proposed building would be constructed of natural stone with a slate roof. Low natural stone walls will be provided to the front of the site, with rendered walls with natural stone pillars to the sides and rear. Windows and doors would be contained in the front and rear elevations of the building with the side containing two small 1st floor windows that serve stairways.

The site area for the application is 0.0702Ha and as five dwellings are proposed (three three bed houses, one two bed house and one flat) the density would be 71 dwellings per Ha.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER: Advised that the applicant has taken on board highway comments made at the pre-application stage. No objection has been raised subject to suggested conditions.

URBAN DESIGN OFFICER: Following the submission of revised plans from the applicant, amending some detailed aspects of the buildings appearance, raised no objections.

ARBORICULTURAL OFFICER: Raised no objections subject to suggested conditions relating to the submission of further details for approval prior to the commencement of development on the site to protect an adjacent mature sycamore tree.

It has also been advised that whilst some tree surgery works may be desirable to maintain a balanced crown to this tree this would not be essential and is unlikely to result in harm to the tree so long as suitable tree protection is provided. It would not be reasonable to require these works to a tree located outside of the application site.

TOWN/PARISH COUNCIL: Object to the proposed development making the following points;

- The proposal represents a contrived form of undesirable backland development on the rear gardens of former Miner Cottages;

- The proposed development, if permitted, will leave some of the properties on whose gardens it is proposed to build with virtually no rear amenity space.

- The proposed represents a gross overdevelopment of the amount of land available with contrival 'double parked' parking spaces and only an extremely small area to the rear for amenity/drying space to serve the number of properties concerned, some of which are intended as family homes.

- The proposed single access to Manor Road exists at a point where there are known to be many minor accidents. This access together with the increase in turning manoeuvres into and out of this site will exacerbate that problem.

- The number of car parking spaces proposed is inadequate to serve the number of dwellings proposed.

The Town Council also advise that there are legal covenants preventing more than one dwelling per original plot, that the applicants currently take access to the site over a private access road without consent and that the development site was created by the applicants last year when they moved in and levelled the gardens concerned.

THE COUNCIL SCHOOLS ORGANISATION MANAGER: Has advised that sufficient primary school capacity exists in the area to serve the development however Writhlington School is full and that therefore an 'education contribution' will be required. It has been calculated that the pupil yield from the proposed development would be 3.4 children per year group and that therefore a contribution of £15,893 is required.

CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER; Has been consulted and raised no objection subject to a condition that requires a human health and environmental risk assessment, as advised by PPS23, to be carried out prior to the commencement of development..

Following the last meeting of the Committee comments from the Council's Conservation Officer have been sought. These will be reported in the update report to this Committee.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS: 16 representations have been received from third parties objecting to the proposed development making the following points;

- The change to the garden plans as set out Lord Hylton is unacceptable

- The development would devalue surrounding homes

- No thought has been given to the surrounding residents and there will be a loss of light and privacy

- Development would result in unacceptable noise and building pollution

- There would be disruption to trees, wildlife and undergrowth

- Unacceptable alteration to boundary wall

- If further housing is required it would be better to extend village boundaries for a substantial estate rather than build on every bit of spare green land

- Access would be dangerous for pedestrians and continuous pathway that exists at present would be lost, no longer a continuous route for children to crossing

- The proposed building would be an eyesore in the area

- Development would result in overlooking

- Undesirable precedent would be set for future of area

- Would look to new in comparison to other development in area

- Area would not retain its present character and heritage would be lost

- Estate is to crammed at the moment and this would make things worse

- Not enough parking is provided and this would cause problems in surrounding area

- Loss of gardens will impact on peoples ability to live more healthily

Two further third party representations have been received making the following points.

- The application is an unwelcome example of 'garden grabbing' in a rural mining village

- Focus needs to be on the location as being the back gardens of what is known locally as 'Hylton Row' a unique set of three terraces facing onto Frome Road.

- Dwellings deliberately had long back gardens and are well over 100 years old.

- Covenants exist to allow only one residential property in each original plot.

- Inexplicably, the Conservation Area boundary stops less than 100 yards from 'Hylton Row' but including similar properties near Hanover Court.

- Previous advise has said that Hylton Row would be worthy of inclusion in an extended Radstock Conservation Area and on a list of locally important buildings.

- PPG3 encourages the full and effective use of land within urban areas however making clear that densities should 'respect local character', and that 'the local environment should not be compromised'.

- Review of the Conservation Area boundary is long overdue in Writhlington.

- BANES local plan policy requires buildings being on a locally important list to be taken into account in determining applications for planning permission.

- The failure to acknowledge the historical importance of Hylton Row is unprofessional.

- The application should be refused.

- The development would be intolerable for us as neighbours

- There would be increased fumes and noise nuisance from traffic

- The development would lead to increased overlooking of garden spaces and directly into children's bedrooms and our bathroom.

- The arguments against the proposal are immense, with no points for it.

PLANNING ISSUES

PLANNING HISTORY: There is no specific planning history relevant to the determination of this application.

PLANNING POLICY: The following policies from the Wansdyke Local Plan are relevant to the determination of this application:

GEN.2 - Development Standards

HO.4 - Housing development within settlements

HO.12 - Housing density and design

HO.13 - Residential Development

TP.1 - Transport and Highways

TP.18 - Transport and Highways

CS.4 - Community facilities and new development

The following policies from the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) 2003 apply:

D1 - Design

D2 - Design and amenity

D4 - Design

HG.2 - Residential Development

HG.4 - Residential Development

HG.7 - Housing Density

HG.7A - Housing Density

T.6 - Cycle Parking

T.24 - Transport and Highways

T.26 - Transport and Highways

CF.3 - Community Facilities

The guidance contained within national Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 -Housing and Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 - Transport, is also relevant to the determination of this application.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT: The site of this application is located within the defined housing development boundary for the settlement and therefore residential development in this location accords with policy HG.4 of the Bath and North East Somerset local plan and the national planning policy guidance contained within PPG3.

A comprehensive scheme for the redevelopment of all the rear garden areas would be preferable however the development proposed in this application would not hinder the further development of surrounding areas.

DESIGN: The development proposed has been designed to reflect the style and form of the existing miners' cottages to the South. Following revisions to the proportions of the buildings gable features, the window positioning and detail and other minor aspects of the buildings appearance the Councils Urban Designer has raised no objection.

By virtue of the position, scale and design of the development proposed it is considered to be acceptable to be consistent with the scale and character of this existing residential area. Although the long garden form of this part of the existing terrace will be altered it is not considered that this makes the proposed development unacceptable and unduly harms the character of the adjacent terrace and this part of the settlement.

It is considered desirable to restrict normally permitted development rights in the interests of the appearance of the development and the amenity of the area.

The context of this development and relationship to the existing terrace has been fully assessed during the processing of the application. The application was the subject of pre-application submission to the Councils 'Development Team' and consultation with the Councils Urban Designer. The proposed development is compliant with the policies of the Development Plan and relevant national planning policy guidance and considered to be acceptable.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY: The position scale and detailed design of the development proposed means that there would not be significant harm to residential amenity such to warrant refusal of the application. Although new development will occur adjacent to existing gardens that enjoy a very open feel at present the size of these gardens, distance to surrounding dwellings and the form of the proposed building mean that no overbearing impact would result to cause significant harm. The close relationship between buildings and garden spaces is not an unusual one within an urban area where the principle of residential development is considered to be acceptable.

The proposed development would provide adequate external amenity space for the proposed new dwellings as well as secure cycle parking and bin storage for the use by the flat. The garden areas of No's 93-99 Frome Road would be reduced in size however an adequate area of external space would be retained for these dwellings.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES: Policy CS.4 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policy CF.3 of the BANES Local Plan require that where local provision for community education is inadequate to serve the projected needs arising from the occupants of new development provision should be made for additional or enhanced facilities. The Councils Schools Organisation Manager has advised that, based on the predicted pupil yield from the development, a financial contribution of £15,893 is required should the proposed development go ahead. The required contribution to comply with the above policies of the Local Plan can be secured through a suitable S.106 agreement.

TREES: Suitable detailed information regarding the mature sycamore tree adjacent to the site has been provided by the applicant. Subject to conditions to ensure protection during construction and that suitable methods are used the proposed development would not harm this tree.

HIGHWAY ISSUES: The Councils Highway Development Officer has advised that the site of this application is well located for schools, local shops and public transport and that development of this scale does not raise any concern about over capacity of the local highway network.

Adequate vehicular and cycle parking is to be provided on the site for the development and there would be no specific harm to highway safety within the vicinity of the site.

Although concern has been raised about parking congestion and pedestrian safety these concerns are not shared by the Highway Development Officer and the creation of access from Manor Park would not harm highway or pedestrian safety.

Following the last meeting of the Committee the Councils Highway Development Officer has further advised that the area of grass verge over which access to the development is sought does not in fact form part of the public highway. Given the above it is necessary to amend the red line for the application site and ensure that the correct ownership certification has been provided. The applicant has been requested to revise this detail of the application.

CONCLUSION

Subject to the completion of a relevant S.106 agreement the development proposed in this application is acceptable, accords with relevant planning policy for new residential development and would cause no significant harm to the amenity enjoyed by surrounding occupiers or highway safety within the vicinity of the site.

Having taken account of further representations and the issues raised the merits of the case remain unchanged and approval is still recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

A. Authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure a contribution of £15,893 in respect of the provision of community education facilities in the area.

B. On completion of that Agreement authorise the Head of Planning Services to PERMIT subject to the following conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 The area allocated for parking (including cycle parking) on the submitted plans shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles (and cycles) in connection with the development hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety.

3 On occupation, 'Residents Welcome Packs' shall be provided for all residents advising of the availability of, and access to local facilities, public transport, car clubs etc, the content of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable development.

4 No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscape scheme has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, density, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; details of the surface treatment of the open parts of the site; and a programme of implementation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

5 All hard and/or soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of the development being completed, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the landscape scheme is implemented and maintained.

6 No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2005 have been erected around any existing trees and other existing or proposed landscape areas in positions which have previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for arboricultural or landscape works.

Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

7 Prior to the commencement of any form of site works or clearance the Local Planning Authority shall be given not less than two weeks notice in writing of these works to ensure that appropriate measures of landscape protection required under condition have been implemented in accordance with the approved plans or conditions.

Reason: To ensure that adequate protection is given to the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

8 Prior to the commencement of the development details of the construction of the footpath around the development and the stone boundary walls shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the details approved.

Reason: In the interests of the existing trees adjacent to the application site.

9 No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the details so approved.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

10 Prior to the commencement of development a Phase 1 desk study, site walkover and human health risk assessment shall be carried out and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to establish whether there is any risk from contaminants to future occupants of the site. If the above initial assessment identifies that further assessment or mitigation measures are required then such assessment and/or details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Any required mitigation measures shall be fully implemented in accordance with details first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the well being of future occupiers.

11 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The introduction of further curtilage buildings requires detailed consideration by the Local Planning Authority to safeguard the appearance of the development and the amenities of the surrounding area.

12 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), there shall be no enlargement or external alteration to any building(s) hereby approved without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and of the amenity and character of the area.

FOOTNOTE:

This decision relates to drawing FR-0003 date stamped the 14th December 2005 and drawings FR-0002 and FR-0001B date stamped the 7th March 2006.

ADVICE NOTE:

Any works required within the public highway to implement this consent will require specific further consent from the highway authority. Further advice on this and any other aspect of these works can be obtained from Highway Development on 01225 477119.

REASONS FOR GRANTING APPROVAL

1. The decision to grant approval has taken account of the Development Plan, relevant emerging Local Plans and approved Supplementary Planning Guidance. This is in accordance with the Policies set out below at A.

A. GEN.2, HO.4, HO.12, HO.13, TP.1, TP.18 and CS.4 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, D1, D2, D4, BH.6, T6, T24, T26, HG.2, HG.4, HG.7, HG.7A and CF.3 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local plan Revised Deposit Draft 2003

2. The proposed development would be appropriate to its setting in an existing residential area would not harm the character of the area, residential amenity or highway safety and through an appropriate financial contribution would meet community education needs arising from the development.

______________________________________________________________________

Item No:02

APPLICATION NO. 06/00277/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 5 April 2006

WARD Westfield

PARISH Norton Radstock

Housing Development Boundary Conservation Area

APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Brain

PROPOSAL Extension and conversion of basement to form day nursery for 15 child places

SITE LOCATION North Hill House, Wells Road, Westfield, Radstock

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

REASON APPLICATION BEING REPORT TO COMMITTEE

This application is being reported to committee at the request of Councillor Chris Cray.

North Hill House is situated to the north of the A36 Wells Road, approximately ¼ mile south-west of Radstock Town Centre, and within Radstock's Conservation Area. The property is a large detached house set in an irregular shaped plot upon a varied topography, behind a substantial stone wall. Access is via a driveway shared with the adjacent property 'Woodlands'. To the front of the house is a parking/ turning area, an area of lawn and a number of trees. To the rear is a terraced garden area. The area immediately surrounding North Hill House comprises, primarily, a mix in house types and designs. This application is to extend and convert the basement to form a day nursery for 15 children together with alterations to the existing access.

THE PRESENT PROPOSAL: The proposal entails the change of use of the property's basement to facilitate a day nursery for 15 children, the construction of a single storey, flat roofed, rear extension, incorporating a ground floor balcony, the provision of a children's play area (enclosed by an acoustic barrier) to the rear and alterations to the existing vehicular access.

An illustrative plan showing the rear, single storey, extension located abutting the right-hand side of the existing property at basement level measuring 4.0 metres in depth, 13.4 metres in length and 3.85 metres in height (including the proposed balcony's balustrade) has been submitted. The external finishes are to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

The children's play area is to be sited centrally within the northern most part of North Hills rear curtilage occupying approximately 43.0 sq metres. It is to be enclosed by an acoustic barrier located on top of an existing stone wall and will be finished to look like a timber panelled fence.

The existing parking area to the front of the property is to remain unaltered and is to integrate one disabled parking space, three staff parking spaces, two residential parking spaces and a drop off / collection area for parents. The dwarf wall, enclosing the front lawn to the southeast of the main dwelling, is to be re-sited to increase the width of the existing access to 5.0 metres.

A supporting statement states that it is intended that the nursery will be open for children to attend at any time between the hours of 08:00am - 18:00pm Monday to Friday; and that 4 members of staff will be employed. Outside play will be restricted to a maximum of one hour a day split into three 20-minute sessions and not all 15 children will utilise the play area at any given time.

PLANNING HISTORY: This is the third planning application that has been submitted seeking planning permission for the partial change of use of the property to facilitate a nursery, for an extension to the rear and, in part, an alternative vehicular access and parking arrangement.

The first planning application submitted (App. No: 04/02430/FUL) was withdrawn on 14th September 2004. The second application (App. No: 04/03732/FUL), which was a resubmission of the first, was refused under delegated powers on 20th January 2005 on the grounds that the development would introduce a substantial commercial use which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, and introduce a new vehicular entrance and an intensive level of parking within the front garden to the detriment of the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. This was, subsequently, dismissed at appeal on 17th August 2005.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

PARISH COUNCIL: No objection.

CRIME REDUCTION AND ARCHITECTURAL LIAISON:

- All proposed landscaping should be planted and maintained to a maximum growth height of 900mm

- Any proposed trees should have a clear trunk height of 2000mm from the ground and not be a climbing aid.

- Have concerns involving road safety issues that vehicles departing from the drop off area will have to use their forward and reverse gears to depart from the front of the building on the approach road.

- Good lighting will reduce the fear of crime and reduce the likelihood of offences being committed. It is especially important to provide good lighting on the approach road and in communal parking areas to an adopted standard BS 5489 part 9, with all proposed development landscaping planted and maintained at low level, so as not to restrict lighting and or natural surveillance.

- The proposed bike parking area should be appropriately managed by the residents and the nursery to the standard of 'Secure by Design'.

- This should also be coupled with a formal procedure at the Nursery in relation to the access and identification of visitors.

- It is important that the relevance of all external signage from the drop off point, parking areas and pedestrian access be directed to the Reception area.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: The proposal for a nursery for 15 children, is half that previously proposed, to which no highway concerns were raised in respect of impact or increased movements from Wells Road. At that time it was considered that the likely spread of departures and arrivals means no significant peak hour would be created. The current proposal will obviously have even less impact.

Adequate parking is available on site given the level of staff proposed, the shift working arrangements and the potential to recruit locally which will indicate how the employer intends to promote these alterative modes, both for staff and parents. The proposed access widening provides space for two vehicles to pass on access/egress, and therefore avoids conflict on the main road. The widening of the drive adjacent to the 'Woodlands' access similarly reduces the potential for conflict.

Minimal lowering of the front boundary wall is required to achieve adequate visibility splays (to the west) and may have conservation area implications. It is, however, considered crucial in being able to create a safe access.

In respect of manoeuvring from the staff parking area there should be a minimum 6 metres distance in front of the parking area, and to achieve this, 1.0 to 1.5 metres of the grass verge opposite needs to be incorporated as driveway. If this raises issues in terms of landscaping, and cannot therefore be achieved, a highways reason for refusal would be recommended.

ARBORICULTURAL OFFICER: The site is within the Conservation Area of Radstock. The proposed alteration to the existing access will bring the wall from 0.5m to 0.0m from the tree. This obviously provides no space for future growth and would probably have a significant impact on the root zone of this tree.

REPRESENTATIONS: 4 letters of objection have been received objecting on the following grounds (summary): effects of additional traffic, parking problems, adverse impact on character and appearance of the Conservation Area, safety of children due to proximity of road, impact on existing trees, noise, is the nursery required - there are a number already within the area.

PLANNING ISSUES

PLANNING POLICY: The relevant policies are GEN.2, CH.4 and CS.3 of the Wansdyke Local Plan which, respectively, provide general development control criteria, seek to protect Conservation Areas, and identify the appropriate criteria in respect of community facilities.

Policies D.1, D.2, D.4, NE.4 and BH.6 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit) 2003 deal with the protection of the character of the area, general development control criteria, design and layout considerations and conservations areas.

Policy TP.18 (Wansdyke Local Plan) and policies T.24 and T.26 (Revised Draft) require the provision of adequate parking and access onto the highway network, having regard to environmental considerations, and the achievement of a high standard of road safety.

IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES: Whilst it is appreciated that the proposed scheme is an improvement to that which was both refused by the Local Planning Authority and dismissed on appeal, concerns remain that the proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and furthermore, to the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area.

Policy D.2 of the emerging Local Plan states that development will only be permitted if the amenity of existing residential development is not harmed, whilst policy CS.3 of the draft Wansdyke Local Plan contains similar criterion which must be fulfilled before the development of community facilities will be permitted.

The parking area / drop off point would mainly be at the front of the property and would see cars entering the site along the existing access to the east which is shared with North Hill Houses adjacent residential property 'Woodlands'.

As stated within the Planning Inspectors Appeal decision, if only two parents' cars at any one time were to visit the site, there would be no serious concerns about disturbance to neighbouring residents. The nursery is to have a capacity of 15 children, a 50% decrease in numbers to that previously proposed, and whilst it is appreciated that the children are likely to be delivered over a couple of hours many parents would wish to stop to see their children settled, or to discuss their child's welfare and development with nursery staff, or to speak to other parents, so that a number of cars may occupy the drop-off space for some time. If numerous parents' cars were present at the same time, it could require awkward manoeuvring of cars on sloping ground, the noise of which could be disturbing for adjacent residential occupiers.

PARKING AND MANOEUVRING: Whilst the Highway Authority have no objections to the proposed access, the proposed parking layout does not incorporate adequate turning facilities to enable a vehicle to enter and leave the parking area without excessive manoeuvring, which is essential in ensuring parking is used efficiently and to avoid displaced and inappropriate parking which may be prejudicial to highway safety. Although there is sufficient space to the forefront of the property to provide further manoeuvring area, the potential loss of trees and grassed areas would detract from the attractive appearance of the front garden.

CONSERVATION AREA: The proposed alteration to the existing access will bring the wall from 0.5m to 0.0m from the existing tree located adjacent to Wells Road. This provides no space for future growth and would probably have a significant impact on the root zone of this tree. The potential loss of this tree and others would result in harm to the character and appearance of this part of the Radstock Conservation Area.

OTHER ISSUES: In relation to the proposed single storey rear extension, whilst the design could be improved, it would not appear significantly out of character. It would be a subservient element that would relate satisfactorily to the scale of the existing dwelling. It is felt that the amended location of the children's play area, away from the property's boundaries, would reduce the impact it may have otherwise have had on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Such considerations do not however outweigh the concerns relating to the impact the development would have on the surrounding area referred to above.

CONCLUSION

Whilst it is appreciated that the proposal is an improvement to the previous scheme, the concerns remain that the proposed development would introduce substantial commercial use which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the surrounding area and to the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.

RECOMMENDATION

1 The proposal would introduce a substantial commercial use which by reason of its associated activity and disturbance would be detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS.3 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policy D.2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) 2003.

2 The proposal would potentially result in the loss of trees which would be harmful to the character and appearance of this part of the Radstock Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy NE.4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) 2003.

3 The proposal does not incorporate adequate turning facilities to enable a vehicle to enter and leave the parking area without excessive manoeuvring, which is essential in ensuring parking is used efficiently to avoid the potential for displaced and inappropriate parking which may be prejudicial to highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy TP.18 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policy T.24 and T.26 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) 2003.

FOOTNOTE:

This decision relates to the following drawing ref. nos: 2006/004 'Existing Site Plan'; 2006/005 'Existing Basement Plan'; 2006/006 'Existing G/Floor Plan & Elevations'; 2006/007 'Proposed Site Plan'; 2006/008 'Proposed Basement Plan'; 2006/009 'Proposed Ground Floor Plan'; 2006/010 'Proposed Elevations' and 2005/151 'Access Detail' received by the Local Planning Authority on 19th January 2006 and the following drawing ref no: 06/00277/FUL 'Additional Elevation' date stamped 8th February 2006.

______________________________________________________________________

Item No:03

APPLICATION NO. 06/00438/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 30 March 2006

WARD Mendip

PARISH West Harptree

Greenbelt

APPLICANT Mrs D Dufore And Mr M Tovey

PROPOSAL Provision of a two storey side extension and detached garage

SITE LOCATION 1 Nine Elms Cottages, Widcombe Common, West Harptree, BS40 6HW

REASONS FOR REPORTING THE APPLICATION TO COMMITTEE

This application is being reported to committee at the request of the Chair given that the Parish Council has raised no objection to the proposals.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

This application was deferred for a site visit but Members asked for additional information relating to the size of the proposals. The requested information is included within the main body of the report under Planning Issues.

The application site is located halfway between West Harptree and Bishop Sutton, just to the south of the main highway between these two villages. It comprises a two storey semi detached dwelling with a hipped roof which pairs with 2 Nine Elms Cottage to the north and closer to the main highway. Both dwellings have been extended to the side with a single storey, flat roof extension. Whilst two separate purpose built semi detached dwellings, the symmetrical design and the siting of the entrance to each of the dwellings to the rear (which is the formal frontage to the dwelling) give the building the appearance of a large single dwelling. The dwelling is sited on an irregular plot of land of a substantial size and lies adjacent to open, level fields. The site lies within both the Green Belt and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Visually, the dwellings are a prominent feature in the landscape and are visible from afar.

This application seeks permission to erect a two storey side extension and a detached garage. The extension is to accommodate a new kitchen/diner, utility room and cloak room on the ground floor and an additional bedroom with ensuite and a further bathroom on the first floor. The extension would be approximately 4.5metres wide and 7.5metres deep. The proposed hipped roof form would be approximately 300mm below the existing ridge. The walling and roofing materials are to match the existing render and slate. A patio area with a porch over the entrance is also proposed to the front of the dwelling (looking towards the open fields to the rear of the site).

The proposed garage is 8metres wide and 5 metres deep with a single garage door along the front elevation. The garage would have a height of 3.8m as measured to the ridge of the gable roof form and would be sited within the southern part of the garden, closest to the existing vehicular entrance to the site. A request has also been made for a block plan to show the position of the new garage.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER: objection on ground of inadequate on site turning area to allow for a vehicle to leave and enter the site in forward gear.

PARISH COUNCIL: No objection

LOCAL RESIDENTS AND THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS: None received.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY CONTEXT: The following policies are most relevant to this case: GEN.2, WGB.1, HO.19, HO.20 and TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, 1995, and D.1, D.2, D.4, HG.15, GB.1, GB.2, NE.2 and T.24 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, (Revised Deposit Draft) 2003.

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREENBELT and AONB: The proposals would more than double the floor area and volume of the original dwellinghouse as shown in Table 1 below. Should the garage be omitted from the scheme, the proposed extensions to the original dwellinghouse would represent a 64% increase in the floor area to the original dwelling house and 67% increase in volume. This would continue to represent a disproportionate addition to the original dwellinghouse. This would represent a disproportionate extension and inappropriate development within the greenbelt. In addition, the overall scale of the proposal would be harmful to the rural character of the area, the dwellings being even more prominent within this part of the AONB. Without the existence of very special circumstances, the proposals are contrary to policies which aim to safeguard the greenbelt and AONB. For this reason and in principle, the extent of the proposals is unacceptable.

Original Dwelling

Existing Dwelling

Proposed Dwelling

Proposed

Dwelling With Garage

Total Floor Area (m²)

105m²

119m²

172.5m²

212.5m²

% increase in area to original dwelling

14%

64%

102%

Total Volume (m³)

325m³

362m³

544.5m³

664.5m³

% increase in volume to original dwelling

11%

67%

104%

HIGHWAYS: The proposed on site turning area has not been designed to meet minimum turning area requirements. The proposals therefore fall short in meeting key highway safety and amenity standards. This could however be rectified by redesigning the proposed on site turning.

SCALE/DESIGN: The substantial scale of the proposed extension in this sensitive location would disrupt the attractive balance and symmetry of this semi-detached pair, having particular regard to their prominent position in this sensitive location.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY: The proposed two storey extension would not unduly compromise the amenity of the neighbouring property. The amenity of the occupiers of the dwelling would benefit from the improved internal layout and size. In this regard the proposals meet key residential amenity criteria.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the proposals therefore represent a disproportionate addition to a dwelling and inappropriate development within the Green Belt. This would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt (as demonstrated by Table 1) and the rural character of the area. In addition, the proposed two storey side extension would disrupt the symmetry and balance between the semi detached pair and would not meet key highway safety and amenity criteria.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:-

1 The proposed development by reason of its size, volume and its location within the Greenbelt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty represent inappropriate development which is disproportionate to the original dwelling house. In the absence of very special circumstances, the proposal is contrary to policies WGB.1, and HO.20 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policies GB.1, GB.2, HG.15 and NE.2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft 2003.

2 The proposed extension, by reason of its size and design would create an imbalance between the dwellings which form a pair and would be harmful to the character of the area and the streetscene. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies GEN.2 and HO.19 of the Wansdyke Local Plan 1995, and D1, D.2 and D.4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, (Revised Deposit Draft) 2003.

3 The proposed on site turning facilities would not allow for vehicles to enter and leave the site in an acceptable manner, to the detriment of highway safety and amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, 1995 and T.24 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, (Revised Deposit Draft), 2003.

FOOTNOTE:

This decision relates to the site plan, block plan and drawing no. 01 date stamped 2 February 2006.

______________________________________________________________________

Item No:04

APPLICATION NO. 06/00450/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 13 April 2006

WARD Mendip

PARISH Cameley

APPLICANT Mr And Mrs A Dando

PROPOSAL Erection of a rear extension, engineering works to accommodate a lower ground floor, the provision of 2 no. dormer windows on the existing rear elevation and a first floor side extension

SITE LOCATION Beaver Lodge, Cameley Road, Cameley, Bristol

REASON FOR REFERRING THIS APPLICATION TO COMMITTEE:

Cllr Warren has requested that this application should be reported to committee if officers are minded to refuse this scheme. Officers are minded to refuse this scheme.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

Beaver Lodge is a detached bungalow in an edge of settlement location on the south western edge of Temple Cloud. The land in the proximity of the site slopes down from north to south leaving properties on the southern side of the road significantly lower than the road but in an elevated position in relation to the open countryside further south.

This open countryside offers significant views to and from the rear of properties on this side of the road. Careful consideration therefore needs to be paid to this proposal to ensure that it responds to this constraint and does not adversely harm the views into and out of the settlement, with potential detriment to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal is for the erection of two rear extensions, engineering works to accommodate a lower ground floor, the provision of 2 no. dormer windows on the existing rear elevation and a first floor side extension (part retrospective)

It follows a previous refusal for a very similar proposal in December 2005. This application differs from that previously refused by removing a proposed dormer on a proposed rear extension, including a single-storey extension to the rear (which has however already been constructed) and including details of a balustrade and steps for an existing patio area.

The plans show that the proposed extension on the eastern side of the rear elevation would be approximately 7500mm wide and 6150mm deep. The extension would be approximately 5000mm high to eaves (from excavated ground level) and the pitched roof would be approximately 8300mm high at the ridgeline. The plans indicate a proposal to excavate the ground levels of an area approximately 7500mm long and 6150mm deep by approximately 1500mm to accommodate a lower ground floor.

This extension seeks to maximise its southern elevation by proposing full width windows on the ground floor's southern and western elevations, whilst the ground floor would accommodate a set of patio doors. On the southern elevation of the first floor an irregular shaped window is proposed.

The walls of this extension are to be faced with render and the roof tiles to match existing. The application form suggests that the colour of render for the proposed walls would be cream

A single storey extension has already been erected on the western side of the rear elevation of the property. This extension is 6200mm deep and 3400mm wide. It has a pitched roof which is 2000mm high at eaves and 2600mm high at the ridgeline. No floor plans have been submitted of this extension.

Although the plans suggest that the materials of both of these proposed extensions are to match existing, the application form suggests that the walls would be rendered blockwork with a cream colour.

A privacy screen approximately 1400mm high is proposed to be sited near to the western boundary of the site. This would appear to be erected on the eaves of the single storey extension described above and would be approximately 3400mm above ground level at its highest point.

With reference to the 2 no. proposed dormers on the rear elevation of the existing southern roof slope the western one is approximately 2300mm wide and the eastern one is approximately 2400mm wide. Both would be sited approximately 900mm above eaves and 200mm below the ridgeline and would protrude from the roofline a maximum of 2700mm. According to the plans the materials and finish of the dormers would match existing.

The first floor side extension would be sited above what appears to be an existing single storey addition to the property. It would be approximately 2500mm wide and 7500mm long. The extension would be approximately 2500mm above ground level at eaves and 6000mm at the ridgeline. A velux window is proposed in this extension.

The proposed balustrade to be erected on the existing raise patio to the rear would be approximately 1000mm high. No details of this balustrade have been submitted.

Further velux windows are proposed for the front elevations which according to the plans submitted would not protrude from the existing roofline and therefore would not require planning permission.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In October 1997 planning permission was granted for a single storey side extension, rear dormer and detached double garage. Ref: 97/02655/FUL

In November 1997, planning permission was granted for the change of use of land to the rear from agriculture to domestic garden. Ref: 97/02923/FUL

In July 1998, planning permission was granted for a detached stable block. Ref 98/02541/FUL

In December 2005, planning permission was refused for the erection of a rear extension including the provision of 1 no. dormer window in the side elevation, engineering works to accommodate a lower ground floor, the provision of 2 no. dormer windows on the existing rear elevation and a first floor side extension. Ref: 05/03544/FUL

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

CAMELEY PARISH COUNCIL: No objection.

COUNCILLOR WARREN: states that although the proposed development would be visible from a public right of way, you would only be able to see the gable end. The closest the public right of way comes to the extension is about 150 metres and there is a very similar extension only two houses away.

LOCAL RESIDENT: One letter has been received by an adjoining neighbour. This states that if the Council is minded to permit this scheme, a condition should be included which removes the permitted development right to put windows in the roof of the proposed extension. A further condition is requested that the privacy screen should never be removed or allowed to fall into disrepair.

PLANNING ISSUES

PLANNING POLICY:

Local Plans

The following policies of the Wansdyke Local Plan are relevant to this proposal:

GEN.2 sets out the general design considerations in determining applications.

HO.19 relates to extensions and alterations of residential dwellings

In the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, Revised Deposit Draft 2003 the following policies are relevant:

D.1 considers design and the character of an area.

D.2 considers design issues and residential amenity

D.4 considers design issues.

NE.1 requires that proposals conserve the character and local distinctiveness of the landscape

IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE EXISTING DWELLING, THIS RURAL SETTLEMENT AND ADJOINING COUNTRYSIDE:

In relation to the proposed first floor extension and the dormer windows on the existing rear elevation, these are considered to be an acceptable addition to the property and would not detract from the character or appearance of this rural settlement and adjoining countryside to the rear.

Your officers do however have significant concerns about the proposed extensions to the rear elevation. In relation to the proposed rear extension on the eastern side of the rear elevation there are significant concerns in relation to the overall bulk, scale and design of this extension on this edge of settlement property and its impact upon the character and appearance of this rural settlement and adjoining countryside.

With reference to the proposed bulk and scale of this rear extension, it is noted that the extension would be approximately 8300mm high, 7500mm wide and 6150mm deep. This is considered to lead to a built form that is out of proportion with the existing dwelling and would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. This bulk and scale is further underlined by the proposed excavation which would create the appearance of a two and a half storey extension in comparison to the existing bungalow. Furthermore it would appear that the walls of the proposed extension would be a cream coloured render, which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the house and surrounding area.

The proposed fenestration of the western and in particular the southern elevation is also considered to be unacceptable through the introduction of a disproportionate amount of glazing which is not in keeping with the design of the original dwelling and would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. Of particular note are the ground and first floor window detailing.

The single storey rear extension on the western side of the rear elevation is also considered to be unacceptable. This extension has already been erected and is the reason for the application being described in part as retrospective. As noted above it would appear that the proposed privacy screen is to be mounted onto the eaves of this extension. Your officers are particularly concerned about the design, materials siting, scale and materials of this extension which is considered to be an inappropriate addition to the existing dwelling and not in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

The comments made by Councillor Warren have been noted. Officers agree with the comments that the proposed development would be visible from the public right of way to the rear of the application site. Officers however consider that these two rear extensions would be unacceptably prominent from this footpath which would be of detriment to the character and appearance of the area.

There are no extensions in the vicinity of the application site which would suggest that there is a precedent to allow this proposal.

IMPACT ON AMENITY OF ADJOINING NEIGHBOURS: The impact on the adjoining neighbours has also been carefully considered in relation to this application. The proposed rear extension by reason of its bulk size and design is considered to lead to significant harm to the adjoining neighbour by reason of loss of light and increased sense of enclosure.

The comments of the neighbour to the west of the application site are noted. However officers have significant concerns about this proposal in relation to the amenity of the neighbour to the west which cannot be addressed by conditions. As such the conditions recommended by the respondent would not be appropriate in this instance.

CONCLUSION

This resubmitted application has failed to address the reasons for refusal of the previously submitted scheme. There remain significant concerns about the bulk, size, materials and poor design of the proposed extension on the eastern side of the rear elevation and its impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbour.

This proposal also seeks retrospective permission for a single storey rear extension on the western side of the rear elevation. Officers consider that the poor design, inappropriate materials, siting, excessive size and scale of this extension to be an unacceptable addition to the existing dwelling and not in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason(s):-

1 The proposed extension on the eastern side of the rear extension, by reason of its excessive bulk, size, inappropriate and poor design in this rural location, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and adversely affect the character and appearance of this rural settlement and adjoining countryside. This would be contrary to policies GEN.2 and HO.19 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policies D1, D2, D4 and NE1 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, Revised Deposit Draft 2003.

2 The existing single storey extension on the western side of the rear elevation, by reason of its poor design, inappropriate materials and siting, excessive size and scale is harmful to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and adversely affects the character and appearance of this rural settlement and adjoining countryside. This is contrary to policies GEN.2 and HO.19 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policies D1, D2, D4 and NE1 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, Revised Deposit Draft 2003.

3 The proposed rear extension, by reason of its excessive size and poor design would have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining residential properties by reason of loss of light and privacy and an increased sense of overlooking. This would be contrary to policy HO.19 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policy D2 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, Revised Deposit Draft 2003.

FOOTNOTE:

This decision relates to the plans and drawings date stamped 24th October 2005 and 31 January 2006.

______________________________________________________________________

Item No:05

APPLICATION NO. 05/03985/OUT TYPE Outline Application

EXPIRY DATE 27 March 2006

WARD Mendip

PARISH Cameley

APPLICANT Mr & Mrs D Purnell

PROPOSAL Erection of dwelling and formation of visibility splay.

SITE LOCATION Cranmore View, Main Road, Temple Cloud, Bristol

REASONS FOR REPORTING THE APPLICATION TO COMMITTEE

This application has been deferred for a site visit but Members also requested further information relating to the density, plot ratio and area of proposed plot. A request was also made to provide size, density and plot ratio information on a plot of land that would incorporate the application site and the land immediately to the west of the application site.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

Cranmore View is located off the Main Road in the village of Temple Cloud. The property contains a proud two storey detached dwelling tucked in to the rear of the site. The dwelling and its neighbours benefit from the narrow Fairview laneway which provides access to the properties from the main road and essentially gives it the appearance of an irregular cul de sac.

The subject site is generally triangular in shape with the existing dwelling located within its south western part. Adjoining the site to the west is a row of detached dwellings. To the north are semi detached pairs of dwellings which are accessed from Fairview. A row of 4 terraced dwellings known as Elm View front Main Road and adjoin the application site to the east. South of the site is a narrow path dividing Cranmore View and land which presently contains 5 shed style outbuildings.

There is no significant vegetation within the grounds. When viewed from Fairview however, the site is significantly screened by an established 1.8 metre high hedge running along the perimeter. The site is within the designated Housing Development Boundary/

This application seeks outline planning permission for a dwelling, and the formation of a visibility splay along Main Road with all detailed matters reserved. The existing plot of land would be subdivided, creating a triangular plot for the proposed dwelling measuring approximately 435m2 in area (or 365m2 without the hardstanding which covers 70m2.)

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER: In consideration of the principle of the development on this site, I am conscious of a previous application and the decision of the Inspector at a subsequent appeal. His conclusion was that the lack of visibility from the access will make the increased use of the junction a "source of danger". Since that time significant changes to the highway environment through the village has had effect on traffic speeds. As well as this the applicant shows ownership of the frontages of Elm View which demonstrates that visibility can be achieved therefore highway objection is NOT recommended subject to inclusion of conditions to retain highway safety and amenity including visibility to be retained permanently at a height of over 1.05metres along the main road.

CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER - The development site is on land which was previously part of brickworks, works and a mill. These processes are likely to have contaminated the land. A desk study and a site walkover is therefore required.

Upon receipt of a desk study and site walkover, the Contaminated Land Officer commented on the proposals and provided the following feedback:

The phase 1 assessment has not been written in accordance with best practice. The writer is referred to BS10175:2001 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites- Code of Practice, CLR11-Model Procedures for Management of Land Contamination and Environment Agency Guidance on Requirements for Land Contamination Reports for further information on what is required in a Phase 1 desk study , site walkover and preliminary risk assessment report.

Although I am not entirely satisfied with the contents of the report I note the conclusions reached and I no longer object to this application. From the evidence provided it would appear that this area was not used to dump industrial waste and therefore it should not be contaminated, however I would still like the following condition to be attached to the planning permission. This will assure that if any contamination is discovered during the development it will be dealt with.

"If during the course of development any unsuspected contamination should be encountered then a report which fully assesses the risks from contamination and remediation proposals should be submitted and approved by the LPA."

PARISH COUNCIL: raise no objection.

LOCAL RESIDENTS AND THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters object to the proposal and raise the following concerns

1. Impact on privacy and sunlight;

2. Impact on the disappearing countryside;

3. The lane is too small to cope with current vehicles in the lane;

4. The proposed site is too small for development applied for without eroding neighbouring properties quality of life;

5. Loss of views;

6. It would affect the character and appearance of nearby properties which is a rural settlement;

7. Although proposals include a visibility splay, it would not materially affect the issue of access or visibility at the junction with A37;

8. Site is not of a sufficient size to support a dwelling without appearing as a cramped overdevelopment.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY CONTEXT:

PPG3: Housing

In the Wansdyke Local Plan, the following policies are most relevant to this case: GEN1, GEN2, HO.4, HO.12, TP.1 and TP.18.

In the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, (Revised Deposit Draft) 2003 the following policies would apply: D.1, D.2, D.4, T.24 and T.26.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: A previous application was refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal.

PRINCIPLE OF A NEW DWELLING: The Local Plans housing policies reflect the advice of Planning Policy Guidance 3 on housing encourages and gives priority to the re-use of previously developed land within urban areas (within housing development boundary) in preference to the development of greenfield sites. In this regard, the proposal to erect an additional dwelling is considered acceptable.

Whist it would not be out of character for a two storey dwelling to be erected on site, concern is raised about the size of the plot of land designated for the new dwelling. Due to its irregular triangular shape, it would be difficult to site a future dwelling in a way that would provide adequate private amenity space for its occupiers and maintain the semi rural character of this part of Temple Cloud. The provision of a dwelling on the site presently dedicated would therefore constitute overdevelopment of the site which would harm the amenity of surrounding and future occupiers and cannot be supported.

The applicant has produced a block plan showing the siting of a two storey dwelling and an attached garage which have a total footprint area of 67m². This would represent a density of 23 dwellings per hectare. The driveway on this plan would cover an approximate area of 70m². Whilst the dwelling is shown for illustrative purposes and does not form part of the application in terms of siting and size, it represents a dwelling size similar to the terraces at Elm View fronting the Main Road (A37) and the small semi detached pair of dwellings diagonally opposite Fairview .

The detached dwellings within the area are generally larger in size than the one suggested for the application site by the applicant. In addition, the plots of land accommodating such dwellings in the area are significantly larger than the proposed application site. For example, the existing chalet dwelling Cranmore View, together with the detached garage has a footprint of 145m². The footprint of dwellings opposite the application site along Fairview have a similar footprint although these are semi detached.

To site a detached dwelling of a size and footprint similar to the nearby detached dwellings including Cranmore View, the size of the irregularly shaped application site would need to increase. This would ensure the detached dwelling is adequately separated from the surrounding dwellings and would also secure acceptable amount of private amenity space for a dwelling of this size. It is suggested that the plot of land should increase to incorporate the parcel of land adjacent to the application site to the west, creating a plot area of approximately 785m². This size would accommodate an appropriately-sized dwelling more comfortably and more in keeping with the surrounding development.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY: A dwelling within the subject site would be substantially screened from Fairview by a tall hedge along the northern boundary. The exact siting of the dwelling and the location of openings would determine the potential for overlooking. Whilst the applicant has come forward with a plan showing a possible siting and size of a dwelling on the application site, this is for illustrative purposes only and does not form part of the formal application. It is important to stress that the detached dwellings within the vicinity including the chalet building at Cranmore View are sited within large plots of land. Given the restrictive nature of the plot however, it is likely that the dwelling of a size similar to other detached dwellings nearby would be sited close to the plot boundaries and therefore could have an overbearing impact on the surrounding dwellings. The proposals would therefore constitute overdevelopment of the site and would compromise the amenity of surrounding occupiers as well as any future occupiers of the dwelling. (This again could be mitigated by increasing the size of the plot which would also improve the amenity space for its occupiers, and separation between the surrounding dwellings).

HIGHWAYS: The applicant has control over the height of the front boundary wall of Elm View terrace and therefore is in a position to ensure that adequate visibility onto the main road is maintained. This affords the opportunity to ensure reasonable highway safety. The existing access gates could provide future vehicular access to this part of the site. Subject to inclusion of conditions to ensure a visibility splay is provided and maintained, and details of turning and parking areas are submitted and approved, the proposals would satisfy key highway safety and amenity requirements.

CONTAMINATED LAND: A Phase 1 contamination assessment has been submitted which concludes that the land was not used to dump industrial waste and therefore should not be contaminated. The land would therefore be suitable to sustain a more sensitive use. In the event of development, a condition should be included however to ensure that if any unsuspected contamination is encountered, a full report shall be submitted to the LPA for approval.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, whilst the subject site falls within the Housing Development Boundary and is generally in accordance with PPG3 guidance, the size and shape of a plot for a new detached dwelling. The proposal would therefore constitute overdevelopment of the site and would compromise the amenity of the surrounding occupiers as well as the future occupiers of this site. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the semi rural character of this part of Temple Cloud.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:

1 The site by reason of its limited size and irregular shape, is considered unsuitable for the erection of a detached dwelling, without compromising the amenity of the surrounding occupiers and the future occupiers of the site and detracting from the character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies GEN.2, HO.4and HO.12 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, adopted December 1995 and policies D.1, D.2, and HG.4 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, Deposit Draft 2003.

FOOTNOTE:

This decision relates to drawing no. 345/1/2 date stamped 6 December 2006.

This decision has been made having particular regard to policies C1, C2, C3, C4, H15, T25 of the Bath Local Plan, adopted June 1997.

The decision to grant refusal has taken account of the Development Plan, relevant emerging Local Plans, approved Supplementary Planning Guidance and third party representations. They outweigh the reasons for refusing this application.

_____________________________________________________________________

Item No:06

APPLICATION NO. 06/00360/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 24 March 2006

WARD Clutton

PARISH Clutton

APPLICANT Mrs R Withey

PROPOSAL Detached dwelling after demolition of existing chalet (Resubmission)

SITE LOCATION The Chalet, King Lane, Clutton, BS39 5QQ

REASONS FOR REPORTING THE APPLICATION TO COMMITTEE

This application is being reported to committee at the request of Councillor Wilcox.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The application site is located along the northern side of King Lane in Clutton. The site presently accommodates a single pitched, single storey building which contains three one-bedroom self contained living units, two ancillary storage areas and three units as stables and ancillary storage. (The latter do not fall within the application site). The building ranges in height from 2metres along its rear elevation and 3.6metres along the front, with door and window openings in the south elevation. The building is 26.2metres long and 8.7metres deep. When viewed from King Lane, the building is significantly screened by a hedge running along the boundary of the application site. A bungalow and a detached garage adjoin the site to the west, and a two storey dwelling with a hipped roof to the east. On the opposite side of King Lane King Lane is a complex accommodating various commercial enterprises.

The site is prominent within the Green Belt, and is visible from the open countryside to the south.

This application seeks permission to replace the existing building with a chalet style dwelling. The main body of the dwelling would be approximately 15 metres wide with a depth of 6 metres and with a single storey rear projection measuring 6metres by 2.4metres. The existing access would be used for vehicles with parking and turning accommodated on site. The proposed dwelling would be closer to the boundary with King Lane than the existing building by approximately 1.9metres. Most of the primary windows would be located along the south elevation towards the views of the hills and open countryside beyond. Natural stone would be used for walls, timber joinery details and double roman roof tiles for the roof.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

PARISH COUNCIL: Raise an objection in principle. It previously objected in principle and sees no reason to amend their opinion.

HIGHWAYS: Recommends refusal of the application given that in highways terms the application is the same as 05/01941/FUL (previous application) and is not compliance with current views on sustainability in terms of PPG13.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: No objection subject to inclusion of conditions restricting noise on construction site, no burning of materials on site and controlling dust during the construction of the development.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: None received.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY CONTEXT:

PPG2 and PPG13

Policies GEN.1, GEN.2, WGB.1, HO.4, HO.11, HO.12 and TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, 1995.

Policies D.1, D.2, D.4, HG.4, HG.7, HG.7a, HG.15, GB.1, GB.2 and T.24 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, (Revised Deposit Draft) 2003.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: 05/01941/FUL Detached dwelling after demolition of existing chalet. (Refused 1 August 2005)

IMPACT ON THE GREENBELT: The proposed chalet dwelling would replace the existing single storey building accommodating three residential units and storage area. The original building was permitted under very special circumstances to support an adjacent riding establishment which can be considered appropriate development. The building would however be replaced by development which is inappropriate, and contrary to green belt policies. The principle of a new dwelling in the Green Belt cannot therefore be supported.

In addition, the proposed dwelling is significantly higher than the existing building which is screened from the highway by a hedge running along the front property boundary. The proposed dwelling would also therefore be visually more prominent when viewed from the open fields beyond and from both directions along King Lane. The proposed massing of the dwelling is inappropriate and would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the greenbelt. It would also be contrary to the reasons for including this land within the green belt. For these reasons, the proposals are considered unacceptable.

DESIGN, SCALE & HEIGHT: The proposed dwelling would be sited between a bungalow to the west and a two storey dwelling to the east.

The design approach for the proposed dwelling is relatively simple with most of the major openings orientated towards the south to benefit from open country views of the hills and valleys beyond. Along the north elevation, closest to the highway, the dwelling does not contain any significant openings. Whilst it is unlikely, therefore, that amenity issues relating to traffic noise would arise, this façade appears very solid. The proposals therefore do not address the streetscene positively, and the visual bulk of the dwelling is further exacerbated due to the high solid to void ratio along the north elevation.

In terms of massing, the proposed building is significantly higher and therefore more prominent than the existing building. This would detract from the rural character of the area. The proposed design of the dwelling is therefore further considered to be unacceptable.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY: The proposed design and orientation of the dwelling would provide adequate amenity for future occupiers. The upper floor windows in the side elevations would however overlook neighbouring properties, to the detriment of the occupiers. The proposals therefore do not meet key residential amenity criteria.

HIGHWAYS SAFETY AND AMENITY: The proposals make provision for sufficient on site parking and turning to ensure that all vehicles leave and enter the site in forward gear. Concern however is raised about the remote location of the site which would require heavy use of private vehicles. For this reason, the proposed dwelling would not meet sustainability objectives as outlined in PPG13 and reflected in policies T.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, 1995 and T.24 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, (Revised Deposit Draft), 2003. For this reason, the proposals do not meet key highway amenity criteria.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the proposals are considered to be inappropriate within the Green Belt, and harmful to the openness and the rural character of the area; and would conflict with the reasons for including this land within the Green Belt. In addition, the proposed dwelling would overlook and be harmful to the amenity of the adjacent residential occupiers. The design and massing of the dwelling would result in a building which would be a dominant feature within this rural setting and would therefore be harmful to the appearance of the area. Finally, the location is unsustainable and would require heavy reliance on private vehicles, contrary to sustainability objectives.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:-

1 The proposal, by reason of its location within the Greenbelt and outside of the designated housing development boundary represents inappropriate development. In the absence of very special circumstances, the proposal is therefore contrary to policies WGB.1, GEN.2 and HO.11 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policies GB.1, GB.2 and HG.4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, Revised Deposit Draft 2003.

2 The proposal, by reason of its remote location and distanced from services, employment opportunities and unlikely to be well served by public transport, is contrary to the principal aims of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 which seek to reduce growth in the length and number of motorised journeys. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy TP1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, 1995 and policy T.24 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, (Revised Deposit Draft), 2003.

3 The proposed development would by reason of the introduction of windows at first floor level, result in overlooking of neighbouring properties, to the detriment of the occupiers thereof, be contrary to policy HO.12 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, 1995 and D.2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, (Revised Deposit Draft), 2003.

FOOTNOTE:

This decision relates to drawing no's 25.232/01A, 25.232/02, 25.232/03, 25.232/04 and 25.232/05 date stamped 27 January 2006.

This decision has been made having particular regard to policies GEN.1, GEN.2, WGB.1, HO.4, HO.11, HO.12 and TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, 1995 and policies D.1, D.2, D.4, HG.4, HG.7, HG.7a, HG.15, GB.1, GB.2 and T.24 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, Revised Deposit Draft 2003.

The decision to refuse the application has taken account of the Development Plan, relevant emerging Local Plans and approved Supplementary Planning Guidance. All other material considerations, including the views of third parties, have been considered, and they do not outweigh the reasons for refusing this application.

______________________________________________________________________

Item No:07

APPLICATION NO. 05/04052/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 8 March 2006

WARD High Littleton

PARISH High Littleton

APPLICANT Mr And Mrs A J Smith

PROPOSAL First floor extension to side, single story extension to front, provision of roof terrace over existing single storey extension to rear and extension of detached garage

SITE LOCATION Camburn, Timsbury Road, High Littleton, BS39 6HL

REASON FOR APPLICATION BEING CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE:

This application is being reported to the Development Control Committee B at the request of Councillor Kew who considers this to be a great improvement to the existing dwelling.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The application site is located on Timsbury Road, on the eastern edge of High Littleton. The property would appear to have been constructed in the mid twentieth century and is situated on the southern side of the road. It occupies an edge of settlement location with open countryside to the east, north and south.

Since its original construction the property would appear to have extended to the side and rear, including the erection of double garages. A further detached garage has been erected on the eastern side of the site, in a particularly prominent position and, unlike the brick faced house, has rendered walls.

The proposal is for a first floor extension to the side, a single storey extension to the front the construction of roof terrace over the existing single storey rear extension, and an extension of the detached garage.

The existing attached garages would be extended to the front, and the larger garage converted to a play room. At first floor level, a dressing room and en-suite bathroom would be accommodated within an extended roof which incorporates, to the rear, a dormer element and facilities access onto a roof terrace.

The walls and roof of the proposed extensions would be constructed of materials to match the existing house. The proposed dormer, including its cheeks, would be clad with vertical plain tiles to match the existing roof.

The proposed extension to the garage would result in a building 9700mm long and 6800mm wide. The existing gabled roof would be replaced with a hipped roof that would increase the overall height of the garage by approximately 1000mm. Plain tiles would be re-used from the existing roof, and new to match. The walls would be finished in smooth render.

RELEVANT HISTORY: There is no planning history directly relevant to this application.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

HIGH LITTLETON PARISH COUNCIL: Have raised no objection.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER: Has raised no objection

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY CONTEXT:

The following policies of the Wansdyke Local Plan are relevant to this proposal:

GEN.2 sets out the general design considerations in determining applications.

LNC.1 considers the impact of the development on the landscape character and quality

TP.1 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not have a detrimental impact on highway safety.

TP.18 requires that adequate off street motor vehicle, motorcycle and cycle parking and servicing is provided.

HO.19 relates to proposed extensions and alterations of residential dwellings.

In the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, (Revised Deposit Draft) 2003 the following policies are relevant:

D.1 considers design and the character of an area.

D.2 considers design issues and residential amenity

D.4 considers design issues.

NE.1 requires that proposals conserve the character and local distinctiveness of the landscape

T.24 relates to highway considerations.

IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE EXISTING DWELLING: The proposals for the detached garage represent a significant extension and raising of the roof on this prominent building. Officers are concerned about the resultant scale, design and materials of the proposed garage which is considered to inappropriate and incongruous in the curtilage of the existing dwelling. Your officers are also concerned about the impact of the proposed garage on the character and appearance of the area including the adjoining countryside. The garage would be particularly prominent from viewpoints to the east of the application site including those on Timsbury Road.

Whilst the overall principle of a first floor extension is acceptable, there are significant concerns about the proposed dormer element to the rear which would represent an incongruous and inappropriate addition to the roof of the proposed extension and would have a poor relationship to the existing house. As a result, the development would harm the character and appearance of this edge of settlement area, including the adjoining countryside to the rear.

With regard to the proposed first floor terrace and the erection of the privacy screen, it is considered that these, too, represent an unacceptable and incongruous addition to the existing property and would also be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

IMPACT ON AMENITY OF ADJOINING NEIGHBOURS: Although a screen is proposed at first floor level which seeks to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy, your officers have significant concerns about the impact on the amenity of adjoining neighbours by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy. Although the proposed screen would prevent users of the proposed first floor terrace from directly overlooking the dwelling of Overdene, it would still provide for views from the terrace over the rear garden of Overdene. The actual or perceived overlooking from this terrace would be far greater than any resulting from a first floor window.

CONCLUSION

Overall, it is considered that whilst the single storey front extension would appear to be an acceptable addition to the existing house and area, there are significant concerns about the proposed extensions and alterations to the garage, the first floor side extension including the proposed dormer and the roof terrace and privacy screen. These are considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the character and appearance of this rural area and the adjoining countryside. It is also considered that this proposal will significantly harm the amenities of the adjoining neighbours.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason(s):-

1 The proposed extension, of the existing garage, by reason of its excessive overall scale and design, and inappropriate materials, would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing house and its rural setting. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies GEN.2 and HO.19 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policies D1, D2, D4 and NE1 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, Revised Deposit Draft 2003.

2 The proposed dormer roof element, by reason of its overall scale and design, would represent an incongruous and inappropriate addition to the detriment of the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies GEN.2 and HO.19 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policies D1, D2 and D4 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, Revised Deposit Draft 2003.

3 The proposed first floor balcony and privacy screen, by reason of its design and situation, would represent an incongruous and inappropriate addition to the existing dwelling and would result in significant overlooking of the neighbouring property, to the detriment of the amenities thereof. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies GEN.2 and HO.19 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policies D1, D2, and D4 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, Revised Deposit Draft 2003.

FOOTNOTE:

This decision relates to the site location plan and drawing numbers AJS/01, AJS/02, AJS/03 and AJS/06 date stamped 19 December 2005 and drawing numbers AJS/04A and AJS/05A date stamped xx March 2006.

______________________________________________________________________

Item No:08

APPLICATION NO. 06/00080/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 17 March 2006

WARD Timsbury

PARISH Timsbury

Housing Development Boundary

APPLICANT Mr And Mrs I Kelsey

PROPOSAL Erection of a first floor extension

SITE LOCATION 27 Upper Furlong, Timsbury, BA2 0NN,

REASON FOR REPORTING THE APPLICATION TO COMMITTEE:

This application is being reported to committee for determination following referral to the Chair of the Committee. Approval is recommended although an objection has been received from the Parish Council.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

This application relates to the erection of a first floor extension over an existing garage of this house. The proposal would provide for an extension at first floor approximately 3000mm deep and 3100mm wide and fills a small recess at the front of the house. The proposal includes a gable ended roof which would sit approximately 900mm below the main ridge of the existing dwelling. The walling and roofing materials of the proposed extension are due to match those of the existing dwelling. The proposal, whilst creating additional volume, does not provide any additional increase in the footprint of the building.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER: No comment

TIMSBURY PARISH COUNCIL: Objection of the grounds that the proposal is considered an overdevelopment of the site.

Letters of representation have been received from two adjoining occupiers which raise the following issues:

- That the extension would be overbearing

- Reduce light

- Overlooking

- Precedent for similar extensions which would spoil the area.

PLANNING ISSUES

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:

Wansdyke Local Plan Deposit Draft 1995

GEN.2- Development Standards

HO.19- House Holder Development

The Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft 2003

D.1- Impact of Development on Character

D.2- General Design and Public Realm Considerations

D.4- Townscape Considerations

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None

PLANNING ISSUES: Policy HO.19 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policies D.1, D.2 and D.4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan require that dwelling extensions must be in keeping with the existing house and the local street scene, and must not detract unreasonably from the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY: Due to the layout of the housing in the locality, the adjoining properties to the North (23 and 24 Upper Furlong) have rear gardens which back onto the side elevation of the application site. Although the proposal would be visible from number 23 Upper Furlong, this property shares a closer relationship with the rear of the application site than it does with the front of the dwelling. The elevation (north) presented to number 24 Upper Furlong includes a gable end and the recessed area due to be in filled would increase the area of blank wall on this elevation by approximately 6.9 square metres. This increase in size is not considered to represent an over development of the site and is not considered to give rise to an unacceptable overbearing impact in terms of the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers. The proposal includes a window on the north elevation and concern has been expressed by an adjoining occupier about the potential for overlooking. This can be controlled by way of a condition which would ensure that the window remained obscurely glazed and non opening.

Also sharing a boundary with the application site to the west is 26 Upper Furlong which backs onto part of the front driveway of 27 Upper Furlong. Concern has been express from the occupier of 26 Upper Furlong in relation to overlooking from the first floor window. The window in question is at the front of the property, and replaces an existing window on this elevation, albeit some 3000mm further forward. The existing window looks out from a bathroom, while the proposed window would look out from a new bedroom. The existing set up already allows for overlooking of number 26 Upper Furlong, due to the fact that there are existing windows at 2nd floor level and at the front of the property. Number 26 Upper Furlong is some 30 metres away from the neighbouring bungalow and is separated from it by a driveway and the garden of the adjoining property. Any increase in overlooking is not considered significant enough to justify refusal of this application.

DESIGN: The application site is located within a modern housing estate where the dwellings are of a similar design and style. Many of the properties have a side gable which is set back from the front wall of the property. Whilst each application is assessed on its merits concern has been raised about the form of the proposal and the precedent which might be set by the approval of this extension due to the similar design of the properties on the estate. By definition the recessed area would be lost by the proposed development but the resultant addition is considered to be acceptable. The additional gable at the front would be lower than the ridge of the main dwelling. This would give the extension the appearance of being subservient to the main dwelling and reduce the overall bulk of the extension.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development is of an acceptable scale, size and design and, subject to conditions, would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT with the following conditions:

1 The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 All external walling and roofing materials to be used shall match those of the existing building in respect of type, size, colour, pointing, coursing, jointing, profile and texture.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

3 The proposed window on the north elevation shall be non-opening and glazed with obscure glass and permanently retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 ( or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows, roof lights or openings, other than those shown on the plans hereby approved, shall be formed in the north elevation any time unless specific written permission has first been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.

FOOTNOTE:

This decision relates to the site location plan and drawings 1639/1, 1639/2, 1939/3 date stamped 20th January 2006.

REASONS FOR GRANTING APPROVAL:

The decision to grant approval has taken account of the Development Plan, relevant emerging Local Plans and approved Supplementary Planning Guidance. This is in accordance with the Policies set out below at A.

All other material considerations, including the views of third parties, have been considered, and they do not outweigh the reasons for approving the proposed development.

A. GEN.2 and HO.19 Wansdyke Local Plan Deposit Draft 1995 and D.1, D.2, D.4 Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft 2003

The proposed development is of an acceptable scale, size and design and, subject to conditions, will not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

______________________________________________________________________