Epping Forest District Council Planning Department, Council Offices, 323 High Street, ‘Cumarah’, Epping, th Dunmow Road, . 13 May 2014 CM16 4BZ Leaden Roding, Essex. CM6 1QB Mobile: 07765 883709 e-Mail: [email protected]

Dear Sirs, Re: Proposed two storey side extension. (revised application) 1 Pyrles Lane, , Essex. IG10 2NW

We write in support of our attached planning application, seeking permission for the construction of a two storey side extension at the above property. This application is a revised application, following on from our recently refused application for a similar scheme dealt with under your reference EPF/0525/14.

In order to address the short comings of the previous application, a meeting was held with Mr David Baker of your planning department on 08th May 2014 at the Council Offices. Whilst discussing the proposals it was made evident that the primary reasoning for refusal was due to its perceived impact on the immediately adjacent dwellings to the rear at 185 & 187 ’s Lane.

The location of these and the applicants property is a fairly unique one, in so much that they are both set towards the ends of roads which taper towards each other, meaning that there is an ever decreasing gap between the rear facing aspects of the properties. It should however be noted that both of the afore me ntioned properties have been extended in a similar fashion to that proposed in this application, and in doing so those properties have become closer to their own rear boundaries as well as closer to the applicants property, to such a degree that the usual separation distances suggested in the supplementary planning guidance has been significantly reduced. The applications to extend these properties were judged under the same current planning policy as the applicants refused application.

In order to reduce the bulk and impact of the proposed building the applicants have opted to set back the first floor element of their proposal by 1m, leaving the ground floor element as the previous application. This set back means that the second storey element of the new extension is no closer to the applicants’ rear boundary than the existing nearest part of second storey of the current building. This still allows for an en-suite bathroom facility to be provided within the new bedroom. Indeed the overlooking perceived from the extension and existing building is greatly reduced, in both this and the previous proposals, in so much that only obscure glazed ancillary room windows would face rearwards given the conversion of the smaller rear bedroom to a family bathroom and the orientation of the new en-suite to the new bedroom.

By setting in to the rear the revised proposal also reduces the extended roof height, thus reducing the bulk of the building, and given that the properties to the rear sit on naturally higher ground, the benefit of this reduction in roof height is amplified.

In considering the informative on the planning decision to explore the possibility of a larger single storey side extension, the applicants are keen to point out the proximity of 2 major sewers which cross the property as indicated on the revised plans, and these would lead to greater ground works and costs as well as reducing the otherwise very usable part of the retained garden space.

Given the previously acceptable additions to the properties to the rear and the revisions made to this application in order to minimise the impact on those properties we trust that you will find this proposal acceptable as submitted. Should you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours faithfully, Ian Wood.

on behalf of Mr Mrs J. Redgrave