Committee and date Item

North Planning Committee 6 8th November 2011 Public

Development Management Report

Responsible Officer: Stuart Thomas email: stuart.thomas@shropshire.gov.uk Tel: 01743 252665 Fax: 01743 252619

Summary of Application

Application Number: 11/02118/FUL Parish : Oswestry Rural

Proposal : Erection of a first floor extension

Site Address : The Rock Gibraltar Lane Treflach Oswestry Shropshire

Applicant : Mr And Mrs D Wright

Case Officer : Vicky Hodgson email : [email protected]

Grid Ref: 326011 - 325255

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire Council 100049049. 2011 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made.

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

Recommendation:- Grant Permission subject to the conditions sets out in Appendix 1.

Recommended Reason for Approval

It is considered that the proposed development is of an acceptable scale and design that will not adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing building or the locality or cause undue harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. In this context the proposed development is considered acceptable and in accordance with saved policy H23 of the adopted Oswestry Borough Local Plan and policy CS6 of the adopted Shropshire Core Strategy.

REPORT

1.0 THE PROPOSAL 1.1 The submitted application is for the extension of an existing single storey bungalow called The Rock. The development is to create additional accommodation by raising the roof of the bungalow. The proposed design includes raising 11.15 metres of the roofline by 1.65 metres. The remainder of the roof (6.3 metres) will be raised by 0.6 metres creating a ‘stepped down’ design. The higher section will include dormer windows to the front and rear.

1.2 The design of the extension is amended from that originally proposed which included raising the entire length (17.45 metres) of the roofline by 1.65m to include four dormer windows to the front and three to the rear.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site is located on Gibraltar Lane within the village of Treflach. Treflach includes a mixture of old and new properties as well as a range of property types ranging from old stone cottages to single storey bungalows and two storey houses. There are several property types in the vicinity of the application site; however it is predominantly surrounded by single storey bungalows.

2.2 The application property, ‘The Rock’ is one of four bungalows constructed during the 1980’s, three of which front Gibraltar Lane; The Rock is situated between ‘The Firs’ and ‘Meadowcroft’. The fourth bungalow, ‘The Willows’ is located to the south-east of The Rock, behind The Firs. A recently constructed bungalow, ‘Tawelfan’ is located to the south-west of The Rock and positioned behind Meadowcroft. Gibraltar Lane rises slightly from the junction with Stoney Road and as such The Rock is slightly elevated above Meadowcroft, The Willows and Tawelfan. The Firs and the other properties on the south side of Gibraltar Lane as well as the adjacent properties on the north side of the lane are slightly elevated above The Rock.

2.3 The Rock is rendered (painted cream) with a concrete tilled roof and has been extended in the past to include a single storey rear extension and detached double garage. The existing building has a footprint measuring 162.45 square metres and is 5.1 metres in height to its ridge. It is situated centrally within a good sized plot and accessed to the north off Gibraltar Lane.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

3.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION 3.1 The Parish Council response is contrary to the officer recommendation and both local member and the Parish Council consider that the application should be determined by the Planning Committee.

4.0 COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Consultee Comments 4.1.1 Parish Council - Councillors objected to this application after taking planning considerations into account. At the time of the Parish meeting on 28th June 2011 there were 10 objections from residents on the on line planning register and no comments in favour. General amenities - there are 5 bungalows in the area that this application is next to in Treflach. There are no two storey properties. The proposal is for a large extension which will be 2 storeys. The Trefonen, Treflach and Nantmawr Village Design Statement was adopted by Oswestry Borough Council in August 2006 and paragraphs 16 & 19 state that; 'Further developments must respect the characteristics of the villages, particularly with regard to the sense of space. Any replacement dwelling or extension must sit well within its plot, with the footprint similar to the relationship between existing nearby buildings and their sites' and 'The scale or proportion of buildings should complement and reflect surrounding dwellings and buildings' Councillors felt that this application did not meet these criteria’s.

To this the PC submitted supplementary comment following discussions with a resident 4.1.2 who attended the meeting and queried their decision because they believed the Parish Council's submission did not reflect accurately the discussions and some of the information presented during the meeting. According to the Parish Council the decision to object was based on a vote from the councillors. Out of 14 councillors, 4 were absent, 3 abstained from voting, 1 councillor supported the application and 6 councillors were against the application hence the earlier comment that the Council objected. The comments also said that there were 10 residents’ comments against the application and none in support but it was pointed out that the end of the consultation period is not until 4th July and there could be more in support by that period. The earlier comment by the Parish Council did state that there were 10 residents’ objections at the time of the meeting.

Following the submission of the amendments to the original planning application the 4.1.3 Parish Council raise concerns because the application has created a lot of local interest and some animosity amongst the neighbours in the immediate area. They requested that the application should go before the Northern Planning Committee. The Parish Council fully endorsed a site visit and the full committee looking at this application. Material considerations as to the design, roof line, general amenity and residential amenity should be taken into account.

4.2 Public Comments 4.2.1 The application has raised both support and objections amongst the local community resulting in a total of 71 comments being received. Details of the objection comments and supporting comments are detailed below.

4.2.2 A total of 14 objection comments were received regarding the original scheme from 12 different households. The following concerns were expressed;
The surrounding neighbours would experience loss of privacy through

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

overlooking.
De-value surrounding properties.
The Village Design Statement recommends that new development respects character and local distinctiveness, particularly with regard to sense of space. An extension must sit well within its plot with the footprint similar to the relationship between existing nearby buildings and their sites. The proposed scheme does not and is therefore inappropriate.
Proposal would set a precedent. The LPA should consider what a great detrimental effect an accumulation of similar proposals would have on a small village like Treflach.
The character and beauty of the village should be maintained and not ‘urbanised’ like other villages in the area.
Concerns over whether or not the foundations of the single storey property could withstand the increase in roof height.
Shropshire Council’s website states that ‘recent guidance in PPS1 now asks LPA’s to require scheme to meet proper standards of urban design, sustainability and sense of place’ – this development would certainly be ‘out of place’. It also states that ‘new developments should be designed to the highest possible standards of the day while respecting the scale, proportion and materials of their surroundings’ – again this development would be ‘out of keeping’ with adjacent properties, being a large property in the midst of smaller bungalows. It also makes reference to ‘general amenity’ being a material planning consideration which is described as ‘the character of a place: its appearance, and even it ambience. Factors that can affect amenity include the siting, layout and external appearance of development’ – this development would certainly not be in keeping with nearby properties and change the look and appearance or street scene of the lane and the village.
There is a public interest in protecting the residential amenity of residential properties as a whole. Relevant factors include loss of privacy by excessive overlooking of windows or gardens, loss of light and overbearance by large new buildings that are too close to boundaries – this development does affect other properties in all factors and would have significant relevance on close neighbours and have an adverse affect on nearby neighbours and surrounding properties in the local area.
Previous planning decisions are also relevant. On a property no more than 50 metres from ‘The Rock’ it specifically stated that ‘the height of any dwelling erected on the site shall not exceed single storey living accommodation. Reasons: to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and having regard to adjacent dwellings’ and to ensure that the development was not ‘out of keeping with the pattern and form of development in the locality’. These considerations are extremely pertinent in this case and a reason why this application should be refused as it certainly does not meet the planning considerations with regard to sense of place, scale, residential amenity and proportion. The LPA must show consistency in its approach to applications.
The ‘Village Design Statement’ states among other things that: development should reflect the characteristics of the village; be considered for its impact on the local community; should site comfortably within its plot; and the scale and proportion of dwellings should complement surrounding dwellings. The effect this type of development would have on the village is a concern of a number of villagers both living near and further from the application site. They have real concerns over what this type of development could do to Treflach in the long

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

run.
There are 5 bungalows on this parcel of land and to have a house in the middle would be completely out of keeping with the area. The objectors understand that when the land became available in the 1980’s planning permission was given for 5 bungalows. Permission was applied to build a house on one plot and was rejected by the planning committee at that time.
The Village Design Statement states that further development must respect the characteristics of the village, particularly with regard to the sense of space and any extension must sit well within its plot, with the footprint similar to the relationship between existing nearby buildings and their sites.
Allowing this extension would not only affect 1 or 2 properties but certainly 7 and probably 12. Privacy lost by most and light blocking issues would affect many.
It is unclear how many bedrooms the extended property would have (4 at first floor but nothing indicated on the existing ground floor), this could be as many as 7 bedrooms in total which is obtrusive and not in keeping with the locality. A 7 bedroom property is not a normal family home.
The existing bungalow is situated in an area or predominantly bungalows together with several older properties of historical interest to the area. A large modern house would detract from the charm of the centre of the village.
The plot size is insufficient to support such a large property without impinging on the privacy of the surrounding properties.
The proposed property would not be in keeping with neighbouring properties. It is one of a cluster of five bungalows. Four of these were built some 28 years ago. The fifth Tawelfan more recently and was restricted to a bungalow to fit in with the others.
The four rear windows would overlook The Willows and, therefore, take away our privacy and greatly affect our quality of life. As the property is rendered and painted cream it would cause considerable glare particularly on our kitchen/dining room window.

4.2.3 A total of 11 supporting comments were received regarding the original scheme from 10 from different households. The following comments were made;
The extension would improve the family space and make a lovely family home.
It is good to see that a family which have lived in the area for several years are taking the initiative to develop their home to meet their needs, especially in these difficult times.
It would allow the family to stay in their established home preventing them from having to leave.
The extension has been designed as such to have minimal impact on the immediate area as the roof height would increase a minimal amount to provide a useable second floor.
It would add to the range of properties available in the village vital for future growth for both the village and community and diverse local population.
Families should be encouraged as local school numbers are falling therefore a varied mix of property types is required.
The extension would allow the applicants to make best use of a large attic space.
The roof height would be the same as the neighbouring bungalow.
The extension would sit well within this village and should be encouraged. There are a range of property types in the village which give Treflach its character and charm and reflect its growth and change over the years. As such,

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

the proposed extension will be part of this diversity and is thereby completely in keeping with the character of the village.
The extension is entirely in keeping with the visions set out in the Village Design Statement. For example: it is subsidiary to the original building; the shape and style of the windows is consistent with other dwellings on the lane and in the village; the materials would be sympathetic to the original building and area; the new roof will incorporate a chimney and the dormer windows would punctuate the roof line; the dwelling enjoys a large plot, however there would be no increase in footprint; the new roof line would be below that of ‘The Firs’, adjacent property, and only marginally higher than that of the neighbouring properties on that side of the lane and will be below that of the properties on the other side of the lane; the properties to the rear and side are screened by mature Leyland hedge, panel fencing and maturing trees, therefore no loss of privacy.
The property would continue to have 4 bedrooms.
It would not overlook its immediate neighbours and therefore there would be no loss of privacy.
Of the 5 bungalows only 3 (including ‘The Rock’) are sighted from Gibraltar Lane. All are diverse in appearance and construction, with varying footprints and orientation to the lane. There are two storey properties along the lane as well as a dormer bungalow. The scale and proportions of the extension would complement and reflect perfectly the surrounding dwellings, as stated in the Village Design Statement.
The design of the proposed extension is in keeping with planning permissions for other plots in Treflach which are for 1.5 storey dormer properties and as such this design would fit in perfectly.
The opposition to the extension is unfounded as there are houses and dormer bungalows within the immediate vicinity.
‘The Rock’ is overlooked by a house on the opposite side of the Gibraltar Lane.
Across the main road and on plots adjacent to Yew Tree Cottage, two further two storey houses are under construction which completely fill their small plots, and visually dominate this whole area more than this application ever will. I feel these houses have set a precedent for what can be built in this area of the village.
It appears to me that this application has tried to keep a low roofline, and achieve a 'cottage' look that tries to blend in with its surroundings. The same cannot be said for the houses being built around Yew Tree Cottage which have recently been granted planning permission.

4.2.4 A total of 44 objection comments were received regarding the amended scheme from 20 from different households. The following concerns are expressed;
Privacy issues of those occupying neighbouring single storey bungalows
Increasing the height of the bungalow which is situated amongst other bungalows would mean that the extension would compromise the aspects, privacy, personal and financial values of the occupants of the bungalows surrounding the site.
Proposal would set a precedent for future development in the area
The development is out of character with the area
Any arguments stating it is to make it a family home don't seem to consider the fact it already has 4 bedrooms.
There are 9 bungalows in the vicinity and as such the extension is not in keeping with properties on the lane or the surrounding bungalows.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

The proposed roofline and dormer windows would block sunlight into three rooms of ‘The Firs’ from the south-east view. ‘The Rock’ is only 12m from the dining room window and kitchen windows, there is a window directly opposite the dinning room and kitchen windows of ‘The Firs’ which is unacceptable and which will cause more glare. The existing cream coloured render to the walls is over bright therefore any more render with the extra height would be more unbearable. The proposed windows would have privacy issues for the front and rear of ‘The Firs’. The lowering of the roof is of no benefit from ‘The Firs’.
The owners of a neighbouring property explain that they bought their bungalow because it was surrounded by bungalows.
Unacceptable encroachment upon neighbouring one-storey houses resulting in restriction of light and outlook. The amended plans do not remedy the situation.
Approval of the application will have a huge long term consequence to the detriment of the community. If a precedent is set by this proposal then pending planning applications and future planning applications, for similar totally unsuitable proposals, then they logically cannot be either amended or refused. To date any new buildings blend in with the existing, whether by careful consideration due to the Architect or revisions by the Planning Authority.
To date numerous plans and revisions, and ambiguous 'street plans' have not varied from the simple fact that the height of the proposal is far too high. Whilst acknowledging that the lack of privacy is not a planning requirement, the simple fact of the matter is that the proposal does not satisfy any of the planning criteria.
My parents live in the vicinity of the property and it is clearly visible now let alone with an extension added to it. They retired to Treflach because of the quietude of the village and because of the fact that the majority of properties are bungalows and so afford a large degree of privacy. To change The Rock into a house would impinge on this privacy of the rear of their bungalow (two bedrooms, a kitchen, a bathroom and the rear garden) and look completely out of character; if this is allowed it may well set a precedent of other ridiculous proposals within the village.
The roof line proposed will still be 2ft 4inches above 'The Firs' and as such I do not understand why the proposal is still being considered? It appears that the planning authority have stated that the roof line should be below that of 'The Firs' to achieve the required step down in the ridge line of the properties. To continue the proposal as planned would make the property totally out of character with the adjacent properties and surrounding area.
Why not extend the footprint of the dwelling so no upstairs windows are required. Would this not solve the problem? In doing so the neighbours are more unlikely to object to a proposal.
The revised plans offer only a minimal change to the original plans and are still unacceptable. The majority of the roofline (65.8%) would be higher that that of ‘The Firs’ and the attempts to ‘step-down’ are not valid because of this. The new plans offer no change, particularly to ‘The Firs’, as it would still be overbearing and the situation made worse by a new window proposed in the side elevation which would overlook ‘The Firs’.
The minimal change in roof line and windows do not alter the position that other neighbouring properties will be overlooked and it would be an intrusion on their privacy.
The three properties, Meadowcroft, The Rock and The Firs currently all follow the gradual incline up to ‘The Firs’ and this development would place what is a

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

‘large lump’ in the middle, thus completely altering the character of this small development of five bungalows and spoiling the street scene.
The other four bungalows ‘wrap’ around ’The Rock’ and this development would mar the adjoining properties, being a large property in the midst of what are four small/moderately sized bungalows.
The proposal should be considered to see if it meets CS6, H23 of the Local Development Plan (which is still valid), Material Planning issues and recent local planning approvals. Policy CS6 quotes that development should be ‘appropriate in scale, density, pattern and design taking into account the local context and character, and those features which contribute to local character.’ Policy H23 quotes in relation to extensions to property ‘In the case of houses on established comprehensively designed estates, the extension does not significantly alter the established street scene.’ Policy H23 also quotes that ‘Extensions should be designed so as to avoid overdeveloping the site and losing essential amenity. It is important that any proposed extensions to existing dwellings respect the character and amenity of the existing dwelling, any adjoining dwelling and the area as a whole. Care should be taken within settlements to avoid adversely affecting the privacy and outlook of adjoining properties by adding extensions which overlook them or which reduce their available light and views to an unacceptable degree.’ and that ‘These same principles will apply when assessing the effect any proposed extension has on the general character of the surrounding area, particularly within settlements.’ Material Planning issues also cover scale or proportion, sense of place ‘General Amenity’ i.e. local character, street scene ‘Essential Amenity’ such as overbearance and overlooking. This proposed development does not meet any of the above criteria, it is too large in its context, out of character, significantly alters the street scene, does not respect the character of adjoining dwellings or the area as a whole, adversely affects privacy and outlook/views of adjoining properties to an unacceptable degree, in particular The Firs and The Willows and finally the proposal will greatly affect the character of the surrounding bungalows/area in Treflach which is a small settlement, as described in Policy H6 of the Local Development Plan.
Recent Planning approvals in the local area so as to be fair and consistent for all applicants. Reference is made in particular to Application 09/70009/OUT and its decision dated 29/04/09. The approval placed strict conditions on this development which is approximately 50 metres away from The Rock. The main condition states ‘The height of any dwelling erected on the site shall not exceed single storey living accommodation and have a roof pitch of no more than 40 degrees.’ The reasons for this were ‘To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and having regard to adjacent dwellings.’ The ‘Reason for Approval’ also stated ‘The application site is considered large enough and suitable to accommodate a modest single storey dwelling that would have a satisfactory access, would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, and would not be out of keeping with the pattern and form of development in the locality.’ The proposal at The Rock goes completely against this; it does not have any regard for visual amenities or adjacent dwellings and certainly would be out of keeping with the pattern and form of development in the immediate locality. The Council should be consistent in their approach towards planning issues. To restrict a property only 50 metres away from The Rock to single storey, for all the correct reasons, and allow this application would be a total injustice and a mockery of the Planning system.
Recent planning approvals - 09/70009/OUT, 09/02718/FUL and 10/00663/FUL,

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

all within 100 metres of The Rock have to be taken into consideration. The latter applicants were required by planning officers to reduce their ridge heights or lower floor levels to achieve a gradual stepping down of ridge heights between the existing properties, Chevet Hey down to Yew Tree Cottage. The former applicant was required to change from a dormer to a bungalow to respect the surrounding properties.
If the Planning Committee are required to make a site visit this should include a view from all aspects of the immediate neighbours, not simply Gibraltar Lane. Any members would be welcome to view the position from Tawelfan, and it is likely that all the immediate neighbours would agree also.
‘Tawelfan’ is the most recent to be built out of the 5 bungalows in this area, and at the time it was granted permission the permission rightly restricted by planning conditions so that the property erected was appropriate in design, scale and was in keeping and sensitive to the area's character. The proposed extension will clearly overlook this property and will considerably affect not only their privacy but that of their neighbours. The property was built so to enjoy privacy and peace in a village unspoilt by major development. Allowing this extension to go ahead will set a precedent which will ultimately be detrimental to the residents of the village.
This is not a large expanding village but a small, quiet hamlet with no amenities and a population happy to accept and indeed embrace this.
The street scene does not give a true representation of the properties along Gibraltar Lane and does not include all properties (I.e. ‘The Willows to the rear).The aspect of the south-east view should be shown from ‘The Firs’ as this is the worst view.
The 'Street Scene' is no different to the previous one, still very misleading regarding The Firs. At the risk of repeating myself, we do not want this S.E. gable and window roofs blocking our 3 rooms (The Firs). The gable will be virtually 10 feet above the top of our windows, then the chimney above that also. According to previous building in the hamlet, roofs should not be higher than next door, which this 'Street Scene' proves The Rock is going to be, even taking into consideration the rise in the lane.
The 'street scene' is very misleading. The Firs is L shaped being 11m longer from the right hand windows towards the road, making it 3m in front of The Rock. There is also The Willows to be seen between The Firs and The Rock.
The 'Street Scene' can possibly persuade anyone that the nature of this planning application is a good idea. It shows The Rock towering over The Meadows as well as the windows of The Firs. This will still result in the blocking of light and sun from the south west to the 3 affected rooms in The Firs.
The new ‘Street Scene’ document dated 22 September 2011 shows that this proposed development will be 28 inches above the roof level of The Firs, which is already on higher ground, and the idea of ‘stepping down’ ridge lines as required by the Council is blown out of the water. The Council have already stated in a note, written, I believe, by Tim Rogers Principal Planning Officer, that after unfavourable initial assessment but after a site visit there may have been scope for a height increase but his view with regard to the increase in height would be on the basis that there was a gradual stepping down in ridge lines and that the neighbours roof (The Firs) is higher than the applicants and the new ridge line would not exceed that of The Firs. This ‘Street Scene’ document proves what we already knew at day one, that the height would be above that of The Firs and the applicants have not decreased the height of the majority of the

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

roof (65.8%) by one inch. The Council and its officers should now keep to their previously stated principles, and also in fairness to other nearby property owners, enforce the issue that the height should not be above that of The Firs and that there must be a stepping down of ridge lines from The Firs to Meadowcroft and dismiss the application as it stands.
Some comments submitted supporting the application are from people who are not directly affected as they do not live in the vicinity. No one in the immediate vicinity is in support of the application.
Having read some of the comments both in favour and against the proposed planning application and have noted that many will not be in any way effected by the proposed alterations. Surely the people whose opinions that should be taken into account are those whose lives will be affected by the proposed alteration. Are any of the remaining 4 bungalows that are to the side and rear in favour (there was planning for 5 bungalows granted on the site and this was granted by the Council of the borough of Oswestry). Why this should change and affect so many other people’s lives?? I'm sure that any of the remaining 4 bungalows will welcome by arrangement people in 'favour' to view the impact that it will have on their lives.
The latest changes and the street scene are misleading .The property will still be a 2 storey property in the midst of a group of bungalows and, as such, will still compromise the privacy of its neighbours. This project totally ignores Policy H23 and appears to ignore the proposal for the preservation of Treflach and its environs.
It is important that the character and beauty of the village is maintained and not ‘urbanised’ like another village nearby.
The Village Design Statement completed by the Parish Council in 2005 was produced after consultation with the people of Treflach and therefore the planning guidance should be adhered to.
There have been so many objections in such a small area; surely this fact should be taken seriously.

4.2.5 A total of 2 supporting comments were received regarding the amended scheme from a single household. The following comments are made;
It is true that the five properties are bungalows. However, it is evident that the four other bungalows have little in common with each other, neither with The Rock, nor with other properties in the village. Roof lines, layouts, foot prints, choices of roof covering, sizes of plot, density of construction, driveways and presentations to the road side, etc are clearly different. Other dwellings in the immediate vicinity (Gibraltar Lane, Stoney Road, Trefonen Road) include small and large stone houses, brick dwellings, extended properties, dormer bungalows and other bungalows. All are individual dwellings by way of design, layout, construction, age etc. This variety of dwelling, rather than homogeneity, reflects the real character of the village of Treflach - an eclectic mix of dwellings, suited for a diverse population: young and old, working and retired.
This proposed development as something that is well-suited to its plot, to other properties on Gibraltar Lane, Stoney Road and Trefonen Road, and is fully in line with the framework set out in the Village Design Statement.

5.0 THE MAIN ISSUES
Policy & Principle of Development
Design, Scale and Character

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

Impact on Residential Amenity
Other Matters

6.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL 6.1 Policy & Principle of Development 6.1.1 The proposal falls to be assessed against saved policy H23 of the Local Plan and policy CS6 of the Core Strategy. The proposal is also assessed against the aims and objectives of ‘The Village Design Statement for Trefonen, Treflach and Nantmawr’.

6.1.2 Policy CS6 seeks to ensure that all development is appropriate in scale and design, taking into account the local context and character. This policy also refers to the need to safeguard residential and local amenity.

6.1.3 Policy H23 states that extensions will be allowed provided that they can be adequately accommodated within the curtilage of the existing dwelling without significantly affecting its amenity or the amenity of neighbouring properties and do not adversely affect the character of the original dwelling. H23 also states that in the case of properties located on established comprehensively designed estates, the extension does not significantly alter the established street scene and that extensions will be allowed provided that the extension is of a size and design which harmonise with the appearance of the original dwelling and the area as a whole.

6.1.4 The Village Design Statement for Trefonen, Treflach and Nantmawr (2006) states that further development must respect the characteristics of the villages, particularly with regard to sense of space. Any extension must sit well within its plot, with the footprint similar to the relationship between existing nearby buildings and their sites. The Statement also considers the importance of diversity and states that this is an important characteristic and that in any future development; houses of different designs next to one another should be preferred. It also states that roof lines should be broken and varied in height to add variety in form and shape. It is also noted that the scale or proportion of buildings should complement and reflect surrounding dwellings and buildings and that the size and character of new housing in Treflach be individual in design.

6.1.5 To alter and extend a residential dwelling is therefore considered acceptable in principle under policies CS6 and D6 providing the alterations and additions are of an appropriate design and do not adversely affect neighbouring properties.

6.2 Design, Scale and Character 6.2.1 The existi ng building is a modern detached single storey bungalow of simple design. The property has a footprint of 162.45 square metres and is positioned centrally within a reasonable sized plot. It has a ridge height of 5.1 metres and length of 17.1 metres.

6.2.2 The proposal is to extend the property at first floor level increasing the height of 11.15 metres of the roof by 1.65 metres. The remainder of the roof (6.3 metres) would increase in height by 0.6 metres. The overall height of the property will be 6.75 me tres. The design will include four dormer windows, two the front and two to the rear. At first floor level the accommodation would include five bedrooms, one with an en suite bathroom. The proposed extensional would include the use of render and roof tiles to match existing the existing dwelling.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

6.2.3 Objections have been received from both the Parish Council and neighbours on the grounds that the proposals are too big and out of keeping with the style and design of the bungalow and this area of the village.

6.2.4 Regarding size, it is officers opinion that the dwelling is to be extended in a manner that will, in essence, enlarge the existing bungalow providing a 1.5 storey dwelling with no increase in the buildings footprint. The extension would provide a significant amount of additional floor space (approaching double the amount of existing floorspace) but part of this additional floorspace would have restricted headroom. In terms of volume the amount of additional space created is proportionally much smaller and the additional space created is clearly subservient to the amount of space the property already provides. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with policy H23 in this context.

6.2.5 In terms of proposed style and design, as stated previously, the existing bungalow is of a modern, simple design – being of a rectangular plan form under a pitched roof, with a single storey rear extension. The proposals will increase the height of the original roof providing a stepped design to incorporate the incline along the lane. The proposed extension is fairly modest in scale projecting 1.65 metres and 0.6 metres above the existing roof pitch. Although the roof height will be increased the property is surrounded by enough garden space and there is enough distance between it’s neighbours to ensure that the specious nature of the area will not be unacceptably harmed. The break in the roofline of the proposed extension will provide for a stepping down of roofline matching the nature of the slope on the lane and will add interest to the property’s appearance. The additional roof space and dormer windows are not considered to be seriously harmful to the character or appearance of Gibraltar Lane. In fact conversely, it is considered that the extension will add architectural improvement to the overall appearance of the property.

6.2.6 The amended plans show the height of the extension to be 0.7 metres above the roofline of The Firs which is the adjacent property with a higher floor level. Initially, it was envisaged that it might be possible to provide some first floor accommodation without exceeding the ridgeline of The Firs however this appears not to be the case. The amended plans do demonstrate that officer advice has largely been taken into account with regard to the alterations in the design. Although the height exceeds the preferred height initially advised by officers, given the separation between the properties it is considered that the 0.7 metre increase will not be such a prominent or incongruous feature to warrant refusal of the application on design grounds. Furthermore the Village Design Statement appears to discourage homogeneous designs in favour of a more diverse range of property types and rooflines. Supporting this application would add to this diversity.

6.2.7 With regard to the comments received relating to the approval of new dwellings in the locality each application is assessed on its own merits therefore what is suitable for one site may not be for another. In this case the proposed extension would increase the ridge height of the dwelling to 6.75 metres, a height considered reasonable for a dormer bungalow. It is considered that the increase in height of the property is acceptable due to the local topography.

6.2.8 On balance therefore, having regard to the above it is considered that the proposals are acceptable in terms of scale and design and that the alterations and additions will

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

not adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or the immediate locality to the extent that would warrant refusal. The proposals are considered to accord with policies CS6 of the Core Strategy and saved policy H23 of the Local Plan in this context. Members should be aware that the Parish Council take a different view on the impacts of this particular proposal. These views are material planning considerations which should be balanced by committee in the decision making process.

6.3 Impact on Residential Amenity 6.3.1 Again, objections have been received from local residents and the Parish Council on the grounds that the proposal will adversely affect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

The principle neighbours affected by this development proposal are The Firs and The Willows.

6.3.2 The Firs – The Firs adjoins the application site to the east. This property may experience some loss of light because the property has several windows facing The Rock including a living room window in the north elevation. It is acknowledged that some slight loss of light may be experienced from this particular window, however because the living room of The Firs has other south facing windows, and that the impact will be likely to occur late in the day, it is considered that this impact will not be significant. The extension will be clearly visible from the windows of both the kitchen and dining room in the west elevation because they directly face The Rock. Again, some minor loss of light may be experienced; however these windows are further away from The Rock and are not to primary habitable rooms. It is not considered that the extension will shield light to such an adverse degree that would be unacceptable. Concerns are also raised regarding the proposed window in the side elevation (east) of the proposed extension which would face onto The Firs. This window is for an en suite room and as such it would be obscure glazed. A condition could be attached to any permission granted ensuring this and also restricting the window to be non-opening.

6.3.3 The Willows – The Willows adjoins the application site to the south. The Willows is not positioned directly behind the application property but is situated to the south-east of The Rock and directly behind The Firs. The closest point between The Rock and The Willows is 23 metres. The rear dormer windows will not directly overlook the neighbouring property but would overlook part of the garden area of The Willows. The existing boundary hedge and row of trees will provide some screening and is primarily in the control of the occupier of The Willows. Although there will be some potential overlooking the existing boundary hedge and row of trees will provide screening and The Willows will still retain a reasonable amount of external private amenity space which is not overlooked by any adjoining neighbour therefore ensuring some privacy is maintained.

6.3.4 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the scale and style of the proposed development will not have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties and would not significantly increase overlooking of their properties detrimental to the enjoyment of their land. Although the extension would be relatively large the separation distances between the application property and its neighbours will remain. In this context it is considered that the proposal is in compliance with policies CS6 of the Core Strategy and saved policy H23 of the Local Plan.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

6.4 Other Matters 6.4.1 Other objections that have been raised covering such issues as property devaluation, quality of foundations and the personal circumstances of neighbouring occupants. Whilst these concerns are acknowledged the personal circumstances of the neighbouring occupants do not constitute a material planning consideration. Likewise property devaluation is not a material planning consideration. The structural integrity of the existing building would be covered at building regulation stage and again is not a planning consideration.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In determining the application Members need to consider whether the quantity and quality of the design of development being proposed is justified and acceptable in terms of adopted policy and how much weight should be awarded to the substantial number of both objection and supporting public representations received. Such considerations are on the whole quite subjective and mean that determination of the application is likely to be finely balanced.

7.2 Officers consider that although the proposal will increase the size of the dwelling and alter its appearance such that it will result in a more dominant feature within the street scene, it will not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of the area . Conversely, it could be concluded that the proposed design will improve the design of the dwelling and add to the diversity of property types within the village. On balance officers believe that the extension will not appear unduly overbearing and the living conditions of nearby residents will not be detrimentally affected due to overlooking or loss of light. The degree of overlooking resulting from the proposal will be normal for a built up residential area.

7.3 In this context the proposed development is considered acceptable and in accordance with saved policy H23 of the adopted Oswestry Borough Local Plan and policy CS6 of the adopted Shropshire Council Core Strategy and is therefore recommended that the application be approved.

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES APPRAISAL 8.1 Risk Management There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows:

As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if they disagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs can be awarded irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal - written representations, a hearing or inquiry.

The decision is challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party. The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or misapplication of policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions, rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, although they will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not its planning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be a) promptly and b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose first arose.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding to determine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal against non- determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.

8.2 Human Rights Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community.

First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents.

This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

8.3 Equalities The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of the public at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of a number of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in planning committee members’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 9.1 There are likely financial implications of the decision and/or imposition of conditions is challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending any decision will be met by the authority and will vary dependant on the scale and nature of the proposal. The financial implications of any decision are not a material planning consideration and should not be "weighed" in planning committee members' mind when reaching a decision.

10. Background

Relevant Planning Policies

Central Government Guidance:

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies:

Core Strategy and Saved Policies:

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY :

11/02118/FUL Erection of a first floor extension PDE

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

11. Additional Information

List of Background Papers (This MUST be completed for all reports, but does not include items containing exempt or confidential information)

Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder) Cllr M. Price Local Member

Cllr Joyce Barrow

Appendices APPENDIX 1 - Conditions

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 8th November 2011 – The Rock Treflach 11-02118-FUL

APPENDIX 1

Conditions

STANDARD CONDITION(S)

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the deposited plan received 26th August 2011.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

3. The external materials shall match those of the existing building and there shall be no variation without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the works harmonise with the existing development.

CONDITION(S) THAT ARE RELEVANT FOR THE LIFETIME OF THE DEVELOPMENT

4. The window in the east elevation hereby approved shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall be non-opening and shall be maintained in that condition.

Reason: To preserve the residential amenity of the adjoining property.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), the following development shall not be undertaken without express planning permission first being obtained:-

- extension to the dwelling - free standing building within the curtilage of the dwelling - addition or alteration to the roof - additional openings or alterations to openings

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and so safeguard the character and visual amenities of the area, and to ensure that adequate private open space is retained within the curtilage of the building.

-

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665