Committee and date Item

South Planning Committee ()

20 July 2010 15

Development Management Report

Application Number: 10/02022/FUL Parish:

Grid Ref: 367313 - 303005

Proposal: Amendment to the Proposed REAR DORMER EXTENSION Planning Approval 09/03248/FUL

Site Address: Easthope Coppice Farm Broseley Wood Broseley TF12 5QR

Applicant: Mr Richard & Mary Freemantle

Case Officer: Mr Thomas Cannaby email: [email protected]

1.0 THE PROPOSAL 1.1 Planning permission 09/03248/FUL, granted on 18th January 2010 under delegated powers, permitted alterations and additions to provide front balcony and rear dormer extension. The scheme involved the erection of a pitched roof to a currently flat roofed dormer window at the rear elevation of the property. The current application is an amendment of part of the development permitted by this consent.

1.2 The current application proposes that instead of replacing an existing small flat roofed rear dormer with a larger, duel pitched roof extension at the rear of the dwelling, the dormer be replaced with a flat roofed extension of the same external area as the previously permitted rear extension.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 This property lies in the north of the Broseley Conservation Area close to the boundaryof the World Heritage Site of Ironbridge. It probably dates from the early-mid 19th century, and has been the subject of several alterations and extensions to original property. The site is accessed off a long drive from the main road and is set in a secluded site, not visible from the road, but partially visible from a public footpath which runs around the boundary of the property.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Permit subject to conditions.

Contact Rob Mills (01746) 713132 Page 1 of 5

South Planning Committee (Bridgnorth) : 20th July 2010

4.0 REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION 4.1 In accordance with the adopted ‘Scheme of Delegation’ this application is referred to committee for determination as the Town Council has expressed a view contrary to the Officer recommendation.

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 09/3248/FUL – Permission granted for alterations and additions to provide front balcony and rear dormer extension.

6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Broseley Town Council – Objects Would prefer the applicant to comply with the previously permitted scheme, with particular reference to the pitched roof

6.2 Conservation & Design Section – No comments received

7.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 No representations received

8.0 PLANNING POLICY 8.1 Central Government Guidance: PPS1, PPS5 8.2 Local Plan: S5, D1, D3 8.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance: PGN6

9.0 THE MAIN PLANNING ISSUES Principle of Development Design, Scale and Character Impact on neighbours/residential amenity

10.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL 10.1 Principle of Development 10.1.1 The property is located within the conservation area where national guidance in PPS5 requires that development preserve or enhance the conservation area.

10.1.2 Planning permission 09/03248/FUL granted permission for a number of alterations and extensions to the dwelling, and the applicant can implement this permission if they choose to do so. The current application would not result in an increase in the floor area of the property, and would reduce the overall volume of the extensions to the dwelling compared to the permitted scheme.

10.1.3 The key issue for this application is whether the replacement of the permitted duel pitched roof with a flat roof has a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the building and/or the conservation area which would merit refusal of this application.

10.2 Design, Scale and Character 10.2.1 The Council’s Conservation and Design section made the following comments

Contact Rob Mills (01746) 713132 Page 2 of 5

South Planning Committee (Bridgnorth) : 20th July 2010

regarding the proposal which was granted consent by planning permission 09/03248/FUL and which originally proposed a flat roof extension to the rear dormer: ‘It is considered that the existing “dormer”, which is more of an extension as it is not really inset into a roof, is not of a quality of material or design that should be encouraged to be extended. It would however be possible to provide adequate internal space by building a first floor extension with a pitched roof parallel to the rear wing of the property.’ The application was subsequently amended in line with this advice and consent was granted.

Whilst this advice stated a preference for a duel pitched roof over a flat roof, it 12.2.2 was issued as part of a wider range of suggestions which dealt with the previous application as a whole, which was for more extensive works to the dwelling, and not just the rear dormer extension in isolation.

The question for this application is whether the change from the permitted duel 10.2.3 pitched roof to a flat roof would have such a detrimental impact so as to warrant refusal of this application.

The property, despite its proximity to the development boundary of Broseley, is 10.2.4 set in an isolated location, not prominently visible to surrounding views, and although located within the conservation area, does not make a significant impact to its overall character or appearance.

10.3 Impact on neighbours/residential amenity 10.3.1 The property is set in a fairly secluded site, away from any other residential properties. The proposal would reduce the mass of the extensions permitted by planning permission 09/03248/FUL and so the proposed development would have less of an impact than the permitted scheme, which was not considered to have an unduly detrimental impact on the amenities of any neighbouring residential properties.

11.0 CONCLUSION 11.1 Whilst a pitched roof as permitted by planning permission 09/03248/FUL would be preferable to the flat roof, given the isolated location of the site, the position of the new roof at the rear of the dwelling, and the relatively minor nature of the development in the context of the property as a whole, the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the property or on the wider conservation area.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:

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.

Contact Rob Mills (01746) 713132 Page 3 of 5

South Planning Committee (Bridgnorth) : 20th July 2010

First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact of development upon nationally important features and the impact on residents.

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

Environment Appraisal In report

Risk Management Appraisal None

Community / Consultations Appraisal In report

Member Champion Martin Taylor- Smith

Local Member Cllr Milner Whiteman

Appendices None

Reason for Approval

The proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the original dwelling or the wider conservation area. The development would therefore comply with the criteria set out in the relevant development plan policies, in particular Local Plan policies S5, D1 and D3.

Conditions

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 approved plans and drawings.

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

Contact Rob Mills (01746) 713132 Page 4 of 5

South Planning Committee (Bridgnorth) : 20th July 2010

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.

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire Council 100049049. 2010 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made.

Contact Rob Mills (01746) 713132 Page 5 of 5