Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

PLAN NUMBER

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 20

									                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               12th June 2007
PLAN NUMBER:                     APPLICANT:                       AGENT:

2007/0532                        Mr & Mrs Newsham                 Mr. David Poole
                                                                  FDS Architectural

WARD/PARISH:                     CASE OFFICER:                    DATE RECEIVED:

Hawcoat                          Ian Sim                          13/04/2007
                                 01229 876384                     STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                  07/06/2007

LOCATION:

18 Wheatclose Road, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a two storey side extension forming workshop and utility with a playroom
above.

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B15

Where privacy is to be protected through distance, a minimum of 21 metres will be
required between the facing windows of habitable rooms of different homes. Exceptions to
this policy may be made for the facing windows of ground floor habitable rooms, where
adequate screening exists and also in cases where normal standards of separation cannot
be achieved and existing standards will not be eroded by accepting distances of less than
21 metres.

The use of obscure glazing in habitable room windows will not be an acceptable measure
to overcome the provisions of this policy if this is deemed to provide a sub-standard level
of accommodation.

POLICY B16

For single or two storey side extensions that would, if repeated in a street, convert a row of
properties into a terrace, the Authority will require the design to overcome this effect.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The proposal has been amended to comply with Local Plan Policy and to take into account
the concern expressed by the unattached neighbour. It is similar to other proposal granted
consent within Wheatclose Road with No. 22 being a nearby example and raises no
significant planning issues.




                                        Page 1 of 20
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               12th June 2007
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

      The Occupiers of 11, 14, 16, 20, 22, 32, 9 Wheatclose Road, Barrow in Furness all
informed.

The Occupier, 16 Wheatclose Road, Barrow-in-Furness

“I have seen my neighbour Mr M Newsham, and viewed both his paper plans and the
plans on shown on you website. I have an objection to the plans in their current state, as
there is a window in the 1st floor room overlooking my property. I have informed Mark of
my concerns, and that I am objecting to the window. He has assured me this is a mistake
on the plans. However on the basis that the plans I have viewed on your website show
this window I must object to the application in its current state. Firstly I believe this does
not comply with planning regulations, and this would effectively prevent me or any future
owner on 16 Wheatclose Road from also putting a similar extension up. Providing:

1. The window is not overlooking the boundary wall

2. No part of the extension is over the boundary line (this is not the case with the current
side extension which has guttering and roof slates over the boundary)

3. The extension will not prevent me or any future owner of 16 Wheatclose Road from a
building a similar extension.

I have no other objection to the planning application”.

The Occupier, 9 Wheatclose Road, Barrow in Furness

       “The residents of 18 Wheatclose Road and indeed, any of the residents on the
opposite side of the road as us are very privileged to enjoy views of St Paul‟s School
playing fields mature woodland and the buildings of the Croft Village and the former
„Arndene‟ building through towards Abbey Road without loss of privacy.

My wife and I have lived at 9 Wheatclose Road for 24 years and from the outset
appreciated the value of the assets that such a prime residential area offers.

I count our view of mature woodland toward Abbey Road directly opposite between
numbers 16 and 18 Wheatclose Road, to e an asset and privilege to our property which
we hope to continue to enjoy.

The erection of a two storey side extension to number 18 would of course almost
completely obliterate our view and of course that of any beneficiary to our house or future
occupiers.

Please take this into account when determining the application; I do not wish at this time to
be present at the Planning Committee meeting”.



                                         Page 2 of 20
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              12th June 2007
CONSULTATIONS:


OFFICERS REPORT:

The application site is a semi detached property with a linear shaped rear garden on the
southern side of Wheatclose Road, to the rear is St Pauls Junior School.

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing ground floor extension and its
replacement by a two storey side extension forming a workshop and utility room at ground
floor level and playroom and shower facility above.

The two storey side extension would measure an indicated 8.1 metres by 2.1 metres with
a ridged roof giving a height of approximately 8.4 metres. This is slightly lower than that of
the main house. The extension would also be set back 0.5 metres from the front elevation.
Both of these features will help reduce the terracing effect. External materials are to
match the property and the proposal is to the east of the un-attached neighbour (No. 16
Wheatclose Road). There would be little impact on the neighbour‟s natural light. Off street
parking would remain unaltered and privacy would be protected through distance and
design.

Two letters have been received one from the un-attached neighbour (No. 16). The plans
have been amended to take into account his comments (i.e. removal of side window). The
second representation relates to the loss of a view which, in itself, is not a material
planning consideration.

It should be noted that similar extensions have been added to No. 2, 4, 22 and 46
Wheatclose Road. The extension to No. 22 is very similar being to the same house type
and was approved under reference 2003/1151.

To summarise, the proposal raises no significant planning issues and is similar to other
extensions within Wheatclose Road.

The representations have been considered and a favourable recommendation is
warranted.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration
Limit and the following condition:

Condition No. 2

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
modifications) no opening of any kind shall be made in the western facing elevation
opposite (opposite No. 16 Wheatclose Road) of the permitted extension without the prior
written consent of the Planning Authority.




                                        Page 3 of 20
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              12th June 2007
Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties from overlooking or
perceived overlooking.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

The development, subject to conformity with the stated conditions, will not cause any
material harm to an interest of acknowledged importance and will not conflict with Barrow
Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006.




                                        Page 4 of 20
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              12th June 2007
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                       AGENT:

2007/0510                       Mr C Rawlinson                   David Barrett Architects

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                    DATE RECEIVED:

Dalton North Askam and          Barry Jesson                     19/04/2007
Ireleth Parish Council          01229 876323                     STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                 13/06/2007

LOCATION:

Hill View, Saves Lane, Ireleth, Askam-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of replacement five bedroomed
detached dwellinghouse.


LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B3

For unallocated sites the Authority will expect a density of 30 dwellings per hectare though
lower densities will be accepted where this is in the interest of the economic regeneration
of the area. However, within the area covered by Central Barrow Inset and Dalton
Conservation Area, fairly high overall net development densities (around 70 dwellings per
hectare) will be favoured on residential sites, consistent with primarily two or three storey
development and good standards of amenity.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

It is proposed to demolish the current bungalow and replace with a dwelling. This causes
no detrimental impact to surrounding properties and adds to the variety of house types in
the area.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:



REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 20, 22, 24, 39, 41, 43, 45, Hill Tops, Homelands, Rainbows End,
Langdale, Wynholme, Vale View, Saves Lane, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33 High Duddon
Close, 11, 13 ,15, 17, 19, 21, 23 Abbey Heights, Ireleth, Askam in Furness all informed.




                                        Page 5 of 20
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              12th June 2007
The Occupier, Rainbows End, Saves Lane, Askam in Furness

       “As this is a residential area, I feel it would be helpful if the Committee would
impose a restriction on the hours worked and times of deliveries during any demolition and
rebuilding”.

The Occupier, 19 Abbey Heights, Ireleth, Askam in Furness

“I feel that it would alter the balance of property in the area which mixture helps to make
Saves Lane the attractive area it is. A replacement bunglaow fair enough, a five bedroom
house no. If planning is granted what stops builders buying up older type bungalows in
this lane, demolishing them to build higher priced housing. This is why I oppose the
application”.

CONSULTATIONS:

Cumbria Highways

“There are no objections to the principle of the new dwelling though parking arrangements
will need to be shown on the plans or covered by a condition. The design and access
statement does refer to a future garage though a house of this size should only be
approved with its own, dedicated parking at planning stage.

The turning head should ideally be increased to 9m wide and a permit will be required for
any alteration needed to the vehicle crossing. At present, the vehicle access appears to be
gated and the applicant should ensure that this opens inwards, away from the highway”.



United Utilities

       “I have no objection to the proposal”.

Askam & Ireleth Parish Council

“There are no objections in principle. However, there is concern regarding the existing type
of dwelling and the skyline being broken by a two storey building among single level
(bungalow) properties. However, we do accept that there are other properties in the vicinity
that have roof levels higher than bungalows. A condition of planning has to be that the new
build has to be in keeping in appearance with the original and surrounding properties”.

OFFICERS REPORT:

This application relates to the demolition of the existing bungalow, and the erection of a
house in its place. The application site is located on Saves Lane forming part of the
existing row of dwellings parallel to the road. The surrounding area is residential, with a
mixture of house types found within the street. The existing bungalow is set within
extensive grounds, to both front and rear, and benefits from existing vehicular access from
Saves Lane.



                                        Page 6 of 20
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               12th June 2007
The proposed dwelling occupies a similar footprint as the existing house, but is larger due
to it being two storeys. Privacy is not eroded as the only openings in the upper floor side
elevations serve a bath room and the stairwell. The design of the proposed house reflects
that found in the newer houses found further down Saves Lane, consisting of a roughcast
finish to all elevations but the front, which will be finished in random rubble limestone
walling with limestone quoins. The house, being two storeys, is larger than the adjoining
properties, which are both bungalows. However, Saves lane contains a mixture of both
houses and bungalows, and this development would merely add to that variety.
Orientation of the houses is such that the higher building will not cause any significant
sunlight/daylight loss to the bungalows or gardens.

An objection has been raised, relating to the replacement of the bungalow with a house,
and the possibility of setting a precedent for future proposals of the same nature. You may
recall that consent was granted for a similar proposal at the April Committee meeting of
this year, at Ireleth Road. The circumstances were very similar, though given the variety
of house types within the area, a favourable decision was reached. It should also be noted
that consent has previously been granted, in 2003, at this site for the construction of a two-
storey dwelling, albeit with a ridge height 1.6 metres lower (see appendix A showing the
previous approval). I do not believe this increased height in the current proposal raises
any significant issue.

In terms of parking, the property benefits from a large front curtilage providing the
opportunity for sufficient off-road parking. The design and access statement makes
reference that a garage will be constructed in the near future. It is likely that this would be
permitted development. County Highways have no objections in principle, but state that
parking arrangements should be formalised, or conditioned accordingly. A condition has
been attached below in order to provide a suitable level of parking.

The last issue relates to a comment received concerning restricting the hours of
construction/deliveries. I do not feel this is required given the fact it is only one dwelling,
and it has not been felt necessary in other similar cases.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration
Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

Prior to the beneficial occupation of the dwelling, sufficient space must be provided within
the curtilage of the proposed dwelling for either a garage space behind the building line
and a parking space, or for two parking spaces, one of which shall be behind the building
line. These parking spaces shall be kept clear of any development (whether Permitted or
not by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order
1995, or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) or
obstructions and shall not be used for any other purpose, unless the Planning Authority
gives prior written consent for any variation. All spaces shall accord with the latest version
of the Cumbria Design Guide.




                                        Page 7 of 20
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               12th June 2007
Reason

In order to provide a suitable level of parking associated with the development

Condition No. 3

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
modifications) no additional openings of any kind, other than those hereby approved, shall
be made in the east or west facing elevations of the dwelling hereby approved without the
prior written consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties from overlooking or
perceived overlooking.

Condition No. 4

Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development the bathroom and en-suite must be
permanently fitted with manufacturers obscure glazing of an obscurity rating of no less
than level 4 from the Pilkington glass range (or an equivalent range and rating subject to
prior agreement with the Planning Authority) and thereafter retained unless the Planning
Authority gives prior written consent to any variation.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities between neighbouring properties from
overlooking or perceived overlooking.

Condition No. 5

Drainage must be on the separate system with all foul drainage connected to the foul
sewers and only uncontaminated surface water connected to the surface water system,
unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to ensure that the site is adequately drained and in order to control the potential
for pollution of the water environment.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

The development, subject to conformity with the stated conditions, will not cause any
material harm to an interest of acknowledged importance and will not conflict with Barrow
Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006.




                                        Page 8 of 20
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              12th June 2007
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                       AGENT:

2007/0624                       Mr N Wardman                     Mr W Woodhouse

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                    DATE RECEIVED:

Dalton South Dalton and         Barry Jesson                     30/04/2007
Newton Parish Council           01229 876323                     STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                 23/06/2007

LOCATION:

4 Romney Avenue, Dalton-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

First floor extension over existing front porch to extend bedroom, a two storey rear
extension forming ground floor kitchen with en-suite extension over, and erection of a
rear conservatory.

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B14

Extensions to the rear of dwellings will not be permitted where they adversely affect the
amenities of neighbouring properties by virtue of loss of sunlight or privacy or by the
creation of an overbearing impact or excessive level of enclosure.

POLICY B15

Where privacy is to be protected through distance, a minimum of 21 metres will be
required between the facing windows of habitable rooms of different homes. Exceptions to
this policy may be made for the facing windows of ground floor habitable rooms, where
adequate screening exists and also in cases where normal standards of separation cannot
be achieved and existing standards will not be eroded by accepting distances of less than
21 metres.

The use of obscure glazing in habitable room windows will not be an acceptable measure
to overcome the provisions of this policy if this is deemed to provide a sub-standard level
of accommodation.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

This application consists of 3 elements. An objection has been received regarding the
conservatory, though due to the orientation of the properties no significant issues are
raised.




                                       Page 9 of 20
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               12th June 2007
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers 2, 3, 5, 6 Romney Avenue, 1, 3, Cedarwood, Romney Park, Dalton in
Furness all informed.

The Occupier, 3 Romney Avenue, Dalton in Furness

       “I refer to the above planning application and in particular the erection of a rear
conservatory.
I am concerned at the height of this proposal and consider that this would greatly impact
on the light to my living room. This is taking into account the height of the solid side wall
alone and not including the roof which I believe is to be glass.

I have no objections whatsoever to the other proposals in this application”.

CONSULTATIONS:


OFFICERS REPORT:

The proposal consists of three separate elements to enlarge the property, which is a semi-
detached house situated in a cul-de-sac. The three elements are a front first floor
extension over the existing porch; a rear two storey extension forming an extended kitchen
and the provision of an en-suite to an existing bedroom, and a rear conservatory. The
property has a large rear garden, which slopes down to the west. The attached
neighbouring property is to the south of the application site. To the rear of the site are
open fields.

Front extension

The proposal is to add a small first floor extension over the existing porch; which will
enlarge an existing bedroom. The design is simple, with a pitched roof integrated well to
the existing hipped roof. One window will be provided to the front elevation, though this
does not impact privacy for the dwellings opposite as they will still be more than 21 metres
from the extended house. Materials will match the existing front elevation.

Two storey rear extension

This element consists of a two storey extension but with a relatively small floor area. It will
fill in a small void alongside an existing two storey rear extension, thus extending the full
width of the rear elevation. The attached neighbour has a similar arrangement. In terms
of impact, the proposal raises no significant impact. Only one window is proposed, located
in the rear facing elevation, thus privacy is not impacted.




                                        Page 10 of 20
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                                12th June 2007
Conservatory

The conservatory has a large footprint of 5.4m x 3.9m, and is located on the rear. An
objection has been received from the adjoining neighbour, who raises concern that light
may be lost due to the side wall of the structure. However, as the application site is to the
north of the objector‟s property, it should have little impact in terms of light loss, particularly
sunlight. The letter states that the roof, being made of glass, poses no problem, but due to
the solid nature of the wall it could block light. However, the wall performs the added
function of safeguarding privacy between the neighbours. Given the orientation of the
properties, I do not feel this will be a significant issue.

In conclusion, the scheme as a whole does not create any significant issues and therefore
warrants a favourable recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration
Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

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
modifications) no opening of any kind shall be made in the rooms forming the ground floor
kitchen and first floor en-suite except those hereby approved without the prior written
consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties from overlooking or
perceived overlooking.

Condition No. 3

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
modifications) no opening of any kind shall be made in the south facing elevation of the
permitted conservatory extension without the prior written consent of the Planning
Authority.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties from overlooking or
perceived overlooking.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

The development, subject to conformity with the stated conditions, will not cause any
material harm to an interest of acknowledged importance and will not conflict with Barrow
Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006.



                                         Page 11 of 20
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              12th June 2007
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                      AGENT:

2007/0399                       Miss D Rainford                 Superior Windows Ltd

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                   DATE RECEIVED:

Dalton South Dalton and         Barry Jesson                    22/03/2007
Newton Parish Council           01229 876323                    STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                16/05/2007

LOCATION:

14 Goose Green, Dalton-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Replace all windows and back door to golden oak upvc.

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY D15

Development within or affecting the setting of Conservation Areas will only be permitted
where it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Area. In particular it
should:

1.     Respect the character of existing architecture and any historical   associations by
       having due regard to positioning and grouping of buildings, form, scale, enclosure,
       detailing and use of traditional materials;

2.     Respect existing hard and soft landscape features including open space, trees,
       walls and surfacing;
3.     Respect traditional plot boundaries and frontage widths; and

4.     Respect significant views into or out of the Areas.

Applications for:

a)     Listed Building Consent; or

b)     Planning consent for alterations to un-listed buildings within Conservation Areas or
       new buildings affecting the setting of a Listed Building

must show full details unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority.




                                       Page 12 of 20
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               12th June 2007
POLICY D18

Alterations and additions to a Listed Building or those properties affected by the Article
Four Direction will not be permitted if they adversely affect its character and setting or its
architectural or historic features. In particular, the following alterations are likely to be
unacceptable, particularly where they pose a conflict with the traditions of the building type
or the area;

a)     The use of non-traditional roofing materials;

b)     The use of uPVC or aluminium or other non-traditional materials or styles for
       windows and doors;

c)     Pebble-dashing, or rendering of any type where this would result in the loss of
       features such as stone-work or ornamental brickwork;

d)     The removal of any special features such as ornamental ironwork, carved
       stonework or brickwork, etc; and

e)     The use of uPVC gutters and downspouts.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Installation of upvc windows does not harm the architectural features of the building, or
harm the conservation area.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 Goose Green, 11, 13, 15, 17 Underwood Terrace, Dalton
in Furness all informed.

CONSULTATIONS:

Dalton with Newton Town Council

“As this property is in the Conservation area the Council would like to see timber framed
windows and doors used”.

OFFICERS REPORT:

The proposal is for the installation of upvc windows in the above property, on the front,
rear and side elevations and the replacement of the rear door. The property is within the
Dalton Conservation Area, situated at the end of the terrace which also contains the Brown
Cow public house.




                                       Page 13 of 20
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              12th June 2007
The property currently has timber frames, painted in black gloss. It is believed these
windows were installed approximately 15 years ago. The other properties within the
terrace, with the exception of the Brown Cow, have all lost their original windows. They
currently exhibit a mix of timber and aluminium frames, with a more modern design
including top opening lights. The Brown Cow retains its original sliding sash windows.

The proposed replacements are rosewood upvc double glazed windows. Examples can
be found in the recently constructed homes in Goose Green, which are literally across the
road, Underwood Terrace, from the application site. It should be noted that these
properties fall outside the boundary of the conservation area as no. 14 Goose Green is the
last property within.

Local and National Policy usually seeks to only allow development within conservation
areas which either preserves or enhances the character and/or historical and architectural
features of the area. Whilst upvc is a non-traditional material, consideration has to be
given to the current state of the property, and the adjoining terrace. As stated, all of the
dwellings within the terrace have been modernised with the introduction of non original
window and door designs. There is little consistency in the materials used, or indeed the
styles. The applicant‟s property does have wooden frames, though they do not appear to
be in the original style, which is likely to have been sliding sash, as exhibited by the Brown
Cow.

There have been other applications within Goose Green for the replacement of windows
with upvc. In 1995, nos. 19 & 21 Goose Green both received consent to install upvc, given
the previous modernisation of the buildings. This was also noted in a document prepared
for the council in the same year, „Dalton Conservation Area Study.‟

Another consideration is the recent amendments to the Dalton Conservation Area Article
4. This has had the effect in terms of unlisted buildings that only elevations fronting a
highway have restricted permitted development rights. This suggests that the visual
amenities, usually viewed from a highway, are of importance, and not necessarily the
architectural features of the property. The row of houses does not display any unique
characteristics, and as such are not listed buildings. Given that the terrace has previously
been modernised with non traditional styles or materials, I do not believe that this proposal
will adversely impact the Conservation area, and as such warrants a favourable
recommendation. In addition, due to the recent amendments to the scope of the Article 4
direction, consent would not be required to replace the rear windows and doors of this, or
any other dwelling within the terrace. The rear elevation is easily viewed from Underwood
Terrace, which runs down the side of the property.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration
Limit.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

The development will not cause any material harm to an interest of acknowledged
importance and will not conflict with Barrow Borough Local Plan Review 1996 - 2006
Policy.



                                       Page 14 of 20
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              12th June 2007
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                       AGENT:

2007/0614                       Miss T McGowan                   Mr T Graham

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                    DATE RECEIVED:

Dalton North Askam and          Barry Jesson                     27/04/2007
Ireleth Parish Council          01229 876323                     STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                 21/06/2007

LOCATION:

54 Duddon Road, Askam-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a ground floor bedroom/bathroom extension to the rear elevation.

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B14

Extensions to the rear of dwellings will not be permitted where they adversely affect the
amenities of neighbouring properties by virtue of loss of sunlight or privacy or by the
creation of an overbearing impact or excessive level of enclosure.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Extension to the rear of a semi detached dwelling does not raise any significant issues.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:



REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 52, Orchard House, Duddon road, Askam in Furness all informed.
Livingstons Solicitors


“We act for Mr G M Henry who owns land to the north of 54 and in particular owns the
land upon which it is intended to build this extension notwithstanding that the
applicant has certified ownership of it.
The application land is situated to the north of the historic boundary wall and
buildings that were and always have been part of Number 54. The applicant could not
have acquired more land than was so used, occupied and intended to be part of
Number 54 and our client owns the whole of the land to the north which forms an
access and garden areas on to Orchard House, Duddon Road.



                                       Page 15 of 20
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               12th June 2007
Our client objects to the assumption of ownership and to the application being submitted
without formal notice to him as the owner of the land upon which the applicant has in fact
expressed an intention to construct an extension from the boundary wall and north into land
owned by our client”.

CONSULTATIONS:

Askam & Ireleth Parish Council

“No objections”.

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application before you relates to a single storey rear extension forming a bedroom and
bathroom. The property is a semi detached house which is set in a small parcel of open
space. An access track borders the western elevation of the house. The property
currently has an existing outrigger which is an odd shape, set at an angle of approximately
45 degrees to the rear face of the house. This is due to the constraints of the curtilage.

The scheme involves removing the existing utility room and store and erecting the new
extension in its place. The new structure will be extended further towards the western
boundary of the site, beyond the current walled area of the rear outrigger, into an area of
open land, which is unallocated in the Local Plan. Given the small incursion into this open
land, it is not felt that this extension raises any detrimental visual issues.

Privacy for the attached neighbour is protected by the existing boundary wall, whilst a
blank western elevation protects the privacy to the rear of the houses located on Walker
Street.

In terms of design, the outrigger will have a more pronounced mono-pitched roof than the
existing, but overall provides a more useable space, with a more typical appearance. The
orientation of the properties results in no effect on sunlight reception.

The application would have been dealt with under delegated powers, but for an objection
relating to land ownership. A letter has been received claiming that part of the application
site, the land to the west of the existing outrigger, is in fact in someone else‟s ownership.
This was queried with the applicant, who claims that contact has been made with the Land
Registry to ascertain exactly the extent of the curtilage. Given the opposing arguments,
and its lack of relevance to the actual determination of the application, as in the past, it is
not the authority‟s duty to resolve land ownership issues. Having spoken with both parties,
it has been made clear that the matter is a civil issue to be resolved independently of this
application, and any consent would not override the legal rights of the actual landowner.

Bearing this in mind, and given that the proposal raises no amenity issues, I believe a
favourable recommendation is appropriate.




                                        Page 16 of 20
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              12th June 2007
RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration
Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

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
modifications) no opening of any kind shall be made in the north west facing elevation of
the permitted extension without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties from overlooking or
perceived overlooking.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

The development, subject to conformity with the stated conditions, will not cause any
material harm to an interest of acknowledged importance and will not conflict with Barrow
Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006.




                                       Page 17 of 20
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              12th June 2007
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                       AGENT:

2007/0690                       Mr N Johnson                     Mr W Woodhouse

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                    DATE RECEIVED:

Walney South                    Leanne Largue                    14/05/2007
                                01229 876438                     STATUTORY DATE:

                                                                 28/06/2007

LOCATION:

42 Biggar Bank Road, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a front sun lounge with balcony over and erection of a single storey
side/rear extension forming kitchen, w. c. and porch


LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B21

The creation of patio areas and balconies over house extensions will be refused where
they are considered to represent an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupiers of
neighbouring properties or to occupy a prominent position and be a detrimental intrusion
into the street scene.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The neighbour‟s privacy is to be protected by a 2m high wall to the balcony side.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 54, 29 Headland Rise, 2 Petrel Bank, 39, 40, 43, 44 Biggar Bank Road,
Barrow in Furness all informed.

The Occupier, 40 Biggar Bank Road, Barrow in Furness

“The extent of the three metre projection of the proposed balcony and it close proximity to
my dwelling would result in a severe loss of privacy by allowing a clear line of sight in to
the master bedroom of my house. A situation I‟m sure you would agree would be
intolerable.



                                       Page 18 of 20
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               12th June 2007
We have over the last two years since the residents of number forty two moved in suffered
from a loss of privacy within our front lounge because they choose to use a footpath that
runs along the boundary wall and it elevated position means that they and any visitors look
directly in to our front lounge whilst gaining access to their property something no other
previous occupants did.

I have no objections to the proposed extension of the kitchen to the side and rear of the
proposal”.

CONSULTATIONS:


OFFICERS REPORT:

The application site is a detached 2 storey dwelling at Biggar Bank Road. The application
is for the erection of a front sun lounge with balcony over and the erection of a single
storey side/rear extension, forming kitchen, w. c. and porch.

The front extension will have a footprint of 5.6 x 3 metres. This will extend 2.1 metres from
the front of the existing outrigger. The narrow, L-shaped side/rear extension will be set
back 6.2 metres from the front of the dwelling.

An objection has been received from the neighbour to the north, regarding the impact of
the balcony on their privacy. There is approximately 4 metres between the two properties. I
have discussed the issue with the agent who has amended the plans to address their
concerns. Originally a 1.8 metre flank wall (being only 1 metre at its lowest point) was
proposed at the side of the balcony closest to the neighbour. This has now been replaced
by a 2 metre wall, which I believe will protect the privacy of both the applicant and the
neighbour.

With regards to the visual impact of the proposal, there are a variety of house types along
Biggar Bank Rd, several of which have had additions to the front elevations. There are
also numerous balconies within the street-scene. There is an obvious building line along
Biggar Bank Road. However, I do not feel the proposed extension will be overly intrusive,
given the set back distance, the variety of built forms present within the street-scene and
the presence of a front extension at 44 Biggar Bank Road (which projects 4.7 metres from
the front of the house).

The issue of the use of the existing footpath is not a planning matter, but a civil issue
between the concerned parties.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration
Limit and the following condition:

Condition No. 2

No openings shall be made in the northern elevation of the balcony hereby approved.




                                        Page 19 of 20
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              12th June 2007
Reason

In order to protect the amenities of the occupiers of no. 40 Biggar Bank Road from
overlooking or perceived overlooking.

Condition No. 3

The north facing side wall of the balcony hereby approved shall be permanently retained at
a height of 2 metres.

Reason

In order to protect the amenities of the occupiers of no. 40 Biggar Bank Road from
overlooking or perceived overlooking.


The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

The development, subject to conformity with the stated conditions, will not cause any
material harm to an interest of acknowledged importance and will not conflict with Barrow
Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006.




                                      Page 20 of 20

								
To top