Item 4 Planning Applications 10 July 2014

33

Development Control Committee 10 July 2014 Planning Applications

4 Report of the Executive Manager - Communities PLEASE NOTE:

1. Slides relating to the application will be shown where appropriate. 2. Plans illustrating the report are for identification only. 3. Background Papers - the application file for each application is available for

public inspection at the Rushcliffe Customer Contact Centre in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 and relevant planning legislation/Regulations. Copies of the submitted application details are available on the website http://www.document1.co.uk/blueprint/. The Development Control Committee report for the application is available 5 working days before the meeting on the blueprint website and the full agenda with all the reports is available at http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/councilanddemocracy/meetingsandminutes/agendasandminutes/ Once a decision has been taken on a planning application the decision notice is also displayed on the blueprint website.

4. Reports to the Development Control Committee take into account diversity and Crime and Disorder issues. Where such implications are material they are referred to in the reports, where they are balanced with other material planning considerations.

5. With regard to S17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the Police have

advised they wish to be consulted on the following types of applications: major developments; those attracting significant numbers of the public e.g. public houses, takeaways etc; ATM machines, new neighbourhood facilities including churches; major alterations to public buildings; significant areas of open space/landscaping or linear paths; form diversification to industrial uses in isolated locations.

6. Where the Development Control Committee have power to determine an

application but the decision proposed would be contrary to the recommendation of the Executive Manager - Communities, the application may be referred to the Council for decision.

7. The following notes appear on decision notices for full planning permissions:

“When carrying out building works you are advised to use door types and locks conforming to British Standards, together with windows that are performance

34

tested (i.e. to BS 7950 for ground floor and easily accessible windows in homes). You are also advised to consider installing a burglar alarm, as this is the most effective way of protecting against burglary. If you have not already made a Building Regulations application we would recommend that you check to see if one is required as soon as possible. Help and guidance can be obtained by ringing 0115 914 8459, or by looking at our web site at www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/buildingcontrol”

Reference

Address Page

14/00884/FUL Rear of 1 Central Avenue, West Bridgford Erection of two-storey commercial unit for the purpose of use classes A1 (shops). A2 (financial and professional) and A3 (restaurants and cafes); associated partial removal of railings and hedge to form access

35 - 49

14/00131/FUL Land South of Woodend Farm, Owthorpe Road, Cotgrave Retention of existing dwelling for occupation by rural worker

50 - 55

14/00823/FUL Site to rear of 5 & 7 Nottingham Road, Cropwell Bishop New dwelling

56 - 59

14/00601/FUL 8 Lindy Close, Kinoulton Side extension (two storey and single storey)

60 - 64

14/00680/FUL 3 Violet Road, West Bridgford Proposed two-storey side extension and single storey extension at front, side and rear; dormer window to rear and alterations to roof

65 - 72

14/00826/FUL 1 Melton Road, Tollerton Front and side extensions to bungalow; dormers to side and rear; replace flat roofs with pitched roofs

73 - 79

35

14/00884/FUL

Applicant Mansfield Road Properties Ltd C/O FHP Location Rear Of 1 Central Avenue, West Bridgford Proposal Erection of two-storey commercial unit for the purpose of use

classes A1 (shops). A2 (financial and professional) and A3 (restaurants and cafes); associated partial removal of railings and hedge to form access

Ward Trent Bridge

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 1. The application site is located on the east side of Central Avenue in the West

Bridgford town centre shopping/commercial area. It comprises a disused yard to the rear of 1 Central Avenue (the Halifax Bank) and a strip of land (owned by the Borough Council) adjacent to the north west of the yard up to a footpath which links Central Avenue with the rear entrance to Marks & Spencers, the Albert Road car park and Bridgford Park. The area of land in the Borough Council’s ownership consists of shrubbery and a partially grassed/partially hard standing area. The hard surfaced area is used on occasions by market traders. There is a section of deciduous hedgerow along the northern edge of the yard and the north (side) elevation of 1 Central Avenue, and a 3m high timber fence along the eastern site boundary. To the north west of the footpath, between Central Avenue and the car park, is a rectangular grassed area known as the ‘Croquet Lawn’. The town centre includes a variety of buildings in terms of period, scale, design/style and materials and a wide range of shops, financial services, restaurants/cafes, pubs/bars and other commercial premises including offices and medical services.

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL 2. Full planning permission is sought to erect a two-storey commercial unit for

the purposes of use classes A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional) and A3 (restaurant and cafes). The design is a combination of contemporary and traditional, incorporating extensive glazing and some modern materials but with a traditional pitched roof. The front (north) elevation would include the customer entrance and would be predominantly glazed with a ‘signage zone’ above at ground floor level. The first floor would be recessed from the ground floor to the front and east side elevations, and the front section would be fully glazed including the gable. Part of the roof of the ground floor would be used as a terrace/outdoor seating area accessed by Bi-fold and sliding doors from the first floor accommodation. There would be roof lights in the east (side) roof slope. The materials would be brickwork to ‘broadly match’ the Halifax building to the ground floor walls, Marley Eternit fibre cement slates to the first floor walls and roof, and grey fibre cement cladding panels to match the roof to the first floor front fascia and soffit. The windows and doors would have light grey/silver aluminium frames. The terrace would be enclosed by laminated safety glass balustrading with a brushed steel hand rail. The floor plans show

36

an indoor bin store area and the indicative position of a staircase. There are no further details of the internal layout which would depend on the tenant, and would include customer WCs. Construction of the building would require the removal of a small section of hedgerow.

3. The Design & Access Statement states that the site was previously a rear yard to the Halifax Bank and is under-utilized. There is an alleyway to the east side of the Halifax building providing access to the bin store which also serves as a means of escape route from an external fire escape. As part of the proposal, the Halifax’s fire escape would be redirected and the bin store would be relocated. It is stated that the design objectives are to enhance the public realm in the local vicinity and improve views to the site from Central Avenue and the car park, to provide floor space to ensure viability for A1-A3 users, and to create a broadly traditional architectural aesthetic of high quality which is sympathetic to the site context in terms of elevational proportion and height.

4. The proposal has been altered significantly to ensure that the reasons for the previous refusal have been addressed, and to deliver a high quality building that is sympathetic to its surroundings. The ground floor footprint has been reduced in several areas. At first floor the footprint has been halved to create a mass and height broadly the same as the Halifax, and the front elevation of the first floor has been recessed further to reduce the visual impact from Central Avenue, and to significantly reduce the perceived bulk of the overall building. The materials for each floor have been chosen to contrast. To reinforce the traditional approach, fibre cement such as man-made slate is proposed for the first floor walls and roof. This would reflect the frequent use of slate in the Victorian and Edwardian architecture of West Bridgford. The resultant aesthetic would be sympathetic within the surrounding context. The building may incorporate photovoltaic panels, a heat recovery system, reduced energy lighting and water saving WCs.

5. The Planning Statement refers to The National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) and the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan, and states that an important feature of the NPPF is the culture change it requires from local planning authorities to approach decision making in a positive way, to foster the delivery of sustainable development and look for solutions rather than problems. It states that the proposal has been carefully formulated to address the previous reason for refusal and appeal decision. It reiterates the content of the Design and Access Statement, and states that the access and servicing arrangements are essentially the same as the original proposal which were accepted by the Highway Authority and appeal inspector, who concluded that there would be no conflict with users of the footpath. It also states that there would be no adverse effect on residential amenity, and ventilation details, hours of use and the outdoor seating area could be controlled by condition. It is estimated that 1-2 pitches of the farmer’s market would need to be relocated on the adjacent grassed area and no harm would be caused to the operation of the market.

SITE HISTORY 6. Permission was refused for the erection of a two-storey commercial unit for

the purposes of use classes A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional) and

37

A3 (restaurant and cafes), and an appeal was subsequently dismissed (ref. 13/00220/FUL).

REPRESENTATIONS Ward Member 7. The two Ward Members object on grounds which are summarised as follows.

• The applicants have improved the appearance and massing of the building but it is still too big for the plot it will fill.

• There are far too many cafes/bars/restaurants in the shopping area/West

Bridgford and no need for another.

• More bars will ruin the character of the area, break up the integrity of the shopping area on Central Avenue and diminish the variety & diversity of shops.

• Over the past 10 years the balance of retail and non-retail has altered

significantly and the area is starting to gain an adverse reputation with potential to affect the vitality and viability of the area.

• Additional A3 units will not be sustainable for the health of the shopping

centre or local economy.

• Over the past year more and more customers are expressing strong views about the impact of coffee shops/restaurants on the health of the town centre.

• Concerns about the accuracy of the shopping survey are now than in

April 2013.

• The terrace leaves you in no doubt that the applicant’s aim is the restaurant/bar market.

• Noise from the balcony will carry to nearby houses.

8. One adjacent Ward Member has no comments for or against. Statutory and Other Consultees 9. The Borough Council’s Design and Conservation Officer has made the

following comments: ‘The site is presently an underused external space enclosed by poor quality fencing, railings and some sections of hedge. The site in its current form does not make an attractive or positive contribution to the character of the area or to the southern setting of the park. The proposal is for a new two-storey building in traditional pitched roof form but utilising modern materials and extensive glazing. The result is a light looking building which positively reflects the north facing gable end of the main

38

building at 1 Central Avenue. Although the resultant building would be larger and more visible across the south side of the park than the existing boundary treatments there would be a visual improvement above the current view of the redundant yard area seen through the railings and gaps in the hedge. Creation of active frontage here may also draw pedestrians into the southern end of the park from where they have a more attractive route towards the car-park and library to the north. I am happy that the development would represent a modest enhancement to the southern setting of the park and would not have an adverse impact upon the settings of any nearby listed buildings, and would represent an improvement upon the existing disused nature of the site’.

10. The Borough Council’s Landscape Officer has made the following comments

that ‘The design requires access across Rushcliffe’s land, currently this consists of a hard standing for market stalls with a hedge and thin line of sparse shrubs. The hedge makes a pleasant boundary feature, but doesn’t screen the rather stark backdrop of the buildings beyond. Overall I think the contemporary design will make a positive contribution to the croquet lawn and I don’t object to the removal of the hedge. The tree at the nursery car park entrance is shown for retention, this will need to be protected during the construction period in accordance with BS5837. We should condition this, along with details of any changes to the hard surfacing at the entrance of the building.’

11. The Executive Manager - Neighbourhoods has no objections but recommends conditions to ensure that details of an extract ventilation system for a cooking area in the event of an A3 use, details of any externally mounted plant or equipment (air conditioning, extraction, refrigeration units) and internally mounted equipment which vents externally, and a refuse storage scheme, are submitted for approval. It is also recommended that the delivery and waste collection times are restricted to minimize disturbance to residents.

12. The Nottinghamshire County Council as Highway Authority has no objections in principle as the site is within the town centre near to a vibrant bus corridor and within easy walking distance of public car parks, cycling facilities and on-street servicing areas.

13. The Environment Agency has commented that the proposed development will only meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework if measures detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment relating to a surface water drainage scheme and finished floor levels are implemented.

Local Residents and the General Public 14. 4 Letters from residents of West Bridgford, 1 letter from Friends of Bridgford

Park and 1 letter from the Central West Bridgford Community Association have been received raising objections and comments which are summarised as follows.

a. The external appearance has been changed to a more sympathetic

design which would be less obtrusive.

39

b. The proposal will have a reduced impact on the park in terms of massing

and profile and is more compatible with the character of the park than the previous proposal. However, with virtually all the site built over it will still be over development.

c. In most material respects the application is the same as the one refused

last year and basic objections still remain.

d. Likely to be another coffee shop or eating venue evidenced by the provision terracing. Whilst offering more choice, it is at the detriment to other businesses and local residents and the sustainability of the community. 4 cafes/restaurants have opened on Central Avenue in a year since the developer submitted the previous application.

e. There appears to be no planning framework to provide a vision for the

town centre and prevent erosion of its role as a local diverse town centre.

f. Significant length of hedge bordering the croquet lawn would be removed and replaced by a commercial frontage, and there is no mention of replacement planting.

g. Will set a precedent for other seemingly under used open areas in the

town centre. h. Conditions to limit the use to A1, prevent servicing at weekends,

encroachment on to the croquet lawn and to regulate the trading hours are suggested.

i. The only access is via a footpath connecting the busy car park to Central

Avenue and there would be considerable disturbance during construction, possible loss of parking spaces and/or congestion on Central Avenue, and likely damage to the footpath/grassed area. A temporary alternative route for pedestrians would be needed for safety reasons.

j. 2-3 farmer’s market plots will be displaced – where will they go? If they

relocate to the croquet lawn it will cause further damage of the grassed area which serves as the green lung for Central Avenue and is also the unique historic attraction on the town centre.

k. It is understood that such a development should have a specific tenant

and usage stated before Borough Councillors would allow it. If any exist, who are they and what is their trade?

l. There was no consultation with the community. m. Yet another example of attempts to sell off part of publicly owned

buildings and land for commercial gain.

40

PLANNING POLICY 15. The relevant statutory policies that form part of the Development Plan for

Rushcliffe consist of the 6 saved policies of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan 1996.

16. Other material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF), the recently published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), the emerging Rushcliffe Publication Core Strategy (March 2012) and the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan (2006).

Relevant National Planning Policies and Guidance 17. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) includes a presumption in

favour of sustainable development. Local Planning Authorities should approach decision making in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development and look for solutions rather than problems, seeking to approve applications where possible. In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Development proposals that accord with the development plan should be determined without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

18. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and

environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:

• an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and

competitive economy;

• a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

• an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our

natural, built and historic environment. 19. Three of the Core planning principles of the NPPF state that planning should:

• always seek to ensure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;

• encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been

previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value; and

41

• actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.

20. Chapter 1: ‘Building a strong, competitive economy’ states that the

Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Investment in business should not be over-burdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations and planning policies should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment. Policies should be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan and to allow a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances.

21. Chapter 2: ‘Ensuring the vitality of town centres’ states that planning policies

should be positive, recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality, and promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse offer which reflects the individuality of town centres.

22. The NPPF defines a Primary shopping area as a ‘Defined area where retail

development is concentrated (generally comprising the primary and those secondary frontages which are adjoining and closely related to the primary shopping frontage)’. Primary frontages are likely to include a high proportion of retail uses which may include food, drinks, clothing and household goods, whilst secondary frontages provide greater opportunities for a diversity of uses such as restaurants, cinemas and businesses.

23. Chapter 7: ‘Requiring good design’ states that the Government attaches great

importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for live. Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:

• establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to

create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;

• Respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; and

• Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate

landscaping. 24. It is also stated that planning policies and decisions should not attempt to

impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

42

25. The National Planning Practice Guidance on ensuring the vitality of town centres reinforces the NPPF and refers to redevelopment of existing under-utilised space.

Relevant Local Planning Policies and Guidance 26. Policy 5: ‘Role of Town and Local Centres’ of the emerging Local Plan Core

Strategy identifies West Bridgford as a District Centre and states that the vitality and viability of all centres will be maintained and enhanced, including widening the range of uses whilst maintaining a strong retail character. The justification states that Rushcliffe is served by a range of distinctive district and local centres, all of which have an important role to play in meeting the various needs of Rushcliffe’s many neighbourhoods. Such needs typically include good accessibility to shops, and the presence of key services and employment opportunities; all influential factors in ensuring the continued viability and vitality of a centre. It is important that all centres act as a focus for community life where residents can live, socialise and help to strengthen social cohesion. To maintain this, it is vital to preserve, and where needed, add to the diverse range of (predominantly) retail facilities already present within them. This is essential in ensuring the continued vibrancy and prosperity of centres, particularly in challenging and ever-changing economic circumstances.

27. The Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan (RBNSRLP) is

a material consideration. Policies GP1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), GP2 (Design and Amenity Criteria) and SHOP2 (Local Shopping) are relevant.

APPRAISAL 28. The previous application seeking to develop this site (ref. 13/00220/FUL) was

refused permission on grounds that it would result in over intensive development of the site and would by virtue of its scale, massing, materials and design be out of character with and detrimental to the visual amenities of the area, it had not been demonstrated that a suitable means of access and servicing could be provided without detriment to the character of the area or the safety of users of the adjacent footpath, and that an A3 use would be likely to give rise to an undue impact on the amenity of the area by virtue of additional noise and activity particularly in the evening, contrary to policy GP2 and the NPPF.

29. The appeal inspector considered that the building would have a ‘considerable bulk’ and would ‘fill the confines of the plot and protrude to a significant height at the corner with Marks and Spencer. The resulting profile would be overly prominent and its juxtaposition with the lower buildings either side would appear awkward and intrusive. The mass of the building would be accentuated by the flat roofed design. The contemporary materials and the detailing on the upper floor would not mitigate the incongruous appearance of the overly bulky profile’. The inspector concluded that the building would detract from the character and appearance of the area. However, the inspector considered that the proposal would not encroach on to the adjacent croquet lawn or detract from its setting.

30. With respect to access/servicing and pedestrian safety, the inspector noted that the highway on Central Avenue is a short distance from the site and that

43

deliveries and servicing periods would not be protracted or differ significantly from businesses on Central Avenue which also cross a pedestrian footpath. The inspector also noted that County Highways had no objection and concluded that the proposal would not conflict with users of the footpath or give rise to harm to highway safety.

31. With respect to living conditions, the inspector noted that the nearest residential properties are 60m and 70m away on Central Avenue and Albert Road. The inspector also noted that the town centre is a mixed use location where a certain degree of late night activity is expected. In view of the size of the proposal, the inspector could see no reason why it would give rise to an additional level of activity that would be excessive, or that use of the balcony and external space would lead to a harmful level of noise over that expected from an A3 use, and that hours of use could be controlled by condition. The inspector concluded that there would be no adverse impact on amenity.

32. With respect to the above two matters, the inspector considered that the Borough Council had demonstrated unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense to the appellant and that a partial award of costs to the applicant was justified. The inspector did not express a view on the proportion of non-A1 uses in the shopping area.

33. The site is located in a prominent location in the town centre and is highly

visible within the surrounding area from along Central Avenue and Bridgford Park. It is considered that the site does not make a positive contribution to the surrounding area and that the featureless (other than a fire escape) rear wall of 1 Central Avenue results in a utilitarian appearance. The proposal would also represent the effective use of land by reusing previously developed land and under-utilised space.

34. It is considered that the scale, massing, design and materials satisfactorily address the previous reason for refusal and the appeal decision. In particular, the first floor has been set back from the side and front elevations, a traditional pitched roof has been incorporated and the facing and roofing materials would be predominantly traditional. It is also considered that the proposal would add to the quality of the built environment of the area and enhance the street scene. Whilst the development would result in the loss of a small part of a hedgerow and area of shrubbery which makes a pleasant boundary feature, it does not screen the stark backdrop of the buildings beyond and it is considered that the proposal would make a positive contribution to the setting of the croquet lawn.

35. The site is located within the shopping centre defined on the Proposals Map of

the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan. The town centre includes a variety of A1 shops (including two supermarkets, a frozen food store, a bakers, greengrocers, newsagents, pharmacies, health food shop, opticians, hairdressers, cards & gifts, florists, dry cleaners, clothing, travel agents, charity shops) together with a number of cafes/restaurants, take-aways, public houses, banks/building societies, estate agents and offices. It would appear that the town centre is performing well as a shopping centre despite the recent economic problems.

44

36. The proposed building would be used for A1, A2 or A3 purposes, however, an ‘end user’ has not been confirmed. In the event of an A1 operator occupying the building, there would be no conflict with policy SHOP2. It is also likely that a ‘coffee shop’ operator, which offers a takeaway service and has no waiter/waitress service and no facilities to prepare or cook food, would represent a mixed A1 and A3 use (which is the case with Café Nero at the junction of Central Avenue with Bridgford Road).

37. The purpose of policy SHOP2 of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory

Replacement Local Plan was to control non shopping uses in order to protect the vitality and viability of centres. The supporting text acknowledges that retail services such as building societies, estate agents, restaurants etc. provide important services which are appropriate for shopping centres. However, if such uses predominate, they can dramatically change the character of a shopping centre and undermine its vitality and viability. The challenge is to achieve a successful mix between retail and retail services and this is best implemented with a flexible policy that can respond to changes in provision. The 35% limit for non-A1 uses is derived from a 1979 report which stated that "It was generally thought that the proportion of retail frontage in a centre could not go below two thirds or 65% without some problems". Consequently, SHOP2 attempts to limit A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses in its main shopping areas to about 35% with particular attention paid to retail proposals in Bingham, Radcliffe on Trent, Ruddington and West Bridgford where the proportions of A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses are at or close to the 35% limit.

38. At the time of the previous application, the proportion of non-A1 units within

the defined shopping centre in West Bridgford was 37%. Now that the permission for an A3 restaurant use at Van Gaver House, 48-50 Bridgford Road has been implemented, the proportion is 39%. However, as the current application involves a new building, the proposal would retain the status quo in terms of the proportion of A1 and non-A1 uses. In terms of the possibility of a non-A1 use, it also has to be borne in mind that shopping habits and the function of shopping centres has changed significantly since 1979 and the NPPF promotes competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse range of uses. A change in the approach to the consideration of such matters is highlighted in appeal decisions in 2010 and 2012 relating to 29 Bridgford Road and 14 Gordon Road, West Bridgford, which are considered to be a material consideration relevant to the determination of the current proposal. In these appeals, where the proportion of non A1 units was already at 35%, the Inspectors recognised that the 35% figure was derived from a 1979 report and that shopping habits and the function of shopping centres may have changed since then. They also considered that A3 uses are an important element within town centres as they can enhance the attractiveness of town centres and increase dwell time, and that an active town centre requires a diverse range of uses and the mix of uses will need to change over time to reflect patterns of demand and consumer choice.

39. In view of the proximity of the site to the Central Avenue primary frontage, it is

considered that the site is within the Primary shopping area as defined by the NPPF. Whilst the NPPF states that primary frontages are ‘likely to include a high proportion of retails uses’, other uses are not precluded.

45

40. The proposed development would create jobs, promote competition and improve customer choice. It could also encourage more people into the town centre which would enhance vibrancy, and could increase dwell time. It is, therefore, considered that that either an A1, A2 or A3 use would be appropriate and enhance the vitality & viability and retail character & function of the town centre. As this proposal is for a new build unit and is not a change of use of an existing retail shop it is considered that an A2 or A3 use would not result in such a disproportionate imbalance of A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses so as to undermine the vitality, viability and retail character and function of the town centre.

41. The site is in the heart of the town centre which is a highly sustainable location

with easy access to bus routes. Whilst some customers may travel to the town centre by private car, they are likely to make linked trips.

42. In view of the location and surrounding uses, and the distance from residential

properties, and the comments of the appeal inspector, it is considered that the proposed uses should not result in a significant adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent and nearby properties or the surrounding area. However, in the event of an A3 use, it is considered that conditions restricting the hours of use and controlling the use of the terrace/outdoor seating area are necessary.

43. Whilst the site is located within an area identified to be at some risk of flooding

on the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Maps it does benefit from the River Trent defences and no objections are raised on Flood Risk grounds.

44. In view of the above it is considered that the proposal would represent the type of sustainable economic development envisaged by the National Planning Policy Framework.

45. The concerns raised relating to the use of the strip of land in the Borough Councils ownership for access to the site are not in themselves a material planning consideration in the determination of this application. Deliveries are envisaged to take place from Central Avenue and it is noted that no highway safety concerns are raised in relation to this matter. Whilst it is acknowledged that this application may require the relocation of market traders who are allowed to use this area this is a matter to be resolved outside of the determination of this application.

46. Any signage requiring the express consent of the Borough Council would be

considered under an application for advertisement consent. 47. The proposal was not subject to specific pre-application negotiations. It is

considered that the proposal is acceptable and, therefore, there was no reason to contact the applicant to request alterations to the proposal during the processing of the application.

RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted subject to the following condition(s):-

46

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plan(s) received on 28 April 2014.

[For the avoidance of doubt and to comply with policy GP2 (Design and

Amenity Criteria) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan].

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of the

facing and roofing materials to be used on all external elevations have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council and the development shall only be undertaken in accordance with the materials so approved.

[To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply

with policy GP2 (Design and Amenity Criteria) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan].

4. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of the

materials to be used on the hard surfaced areas of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council and the development shall only be undertaken in accordance with the materials so approved.



5. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance

with the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) MA9615-R01A by Millward submitted with the application, and the following mitigation measures detailed in the FRA:

* The incorporation of flood risk measures at ground floor. * Finished floor levels set no lower than 24.2m above Ordnance Datum. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to the development

being brought into use and shall be maintained subsequently in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

[To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future

occupants and to ensure safe access and egress from and to the site, and to comply with policy WET2 (Flooding) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework].

6. The development shall not commence until a surface water drainage scheme

for the site, limited to existing rates, with a consideration of a 20% betterment, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

47

[To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of

surface water from the site and to comply with policy WET2 (Flooding) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework].

7. In the event of an A3 use, the premises shall not be open for customers

outside the following hours: - [0700 - 2330] Mondays - Saturdays [0800 – 2300] Sundays and Bank Holidays [To protect the amenities of nearby residents and to comply with policy GP2

(Design and Amenity Criteria) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan].

8. The delivery and waste collection times shall be restricted to the following

times:- Monday - Friday 0700 - 1800 hours, Saturday 0800 - 1700 hours and no

deliveries or waste collection on Sundays or Bank Holidays. [To protect the amenities of nearby residents and to comply with policy GP2


9. The first floor external terrace/balcony shall not be used by customers after

2200 on any night and the bi-fold and sliding doors giving access to the first floor external terrace/balcony shall be kept closed after 2200 hours on any night.

[To protect the amenities of nearby residents and to comply with policy GP2

(Design and Amenity Criteria) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan]

10. There shall be no amplified speakers installed or music played in the outside

areas of the site at any time. [To protect the amenities of nearby residents and to comply with policy GP2


11. The ground floor doors shall be kept closed after 2200 except for access and

egress. [To protect the amenities of nearby residents and to comply with policy GP2


12. Before the use is commenced the noise levels for any externally mounted

plant or equipment, together with any internally mounted equipment which vents externally, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough

48

Council, and the plant/equipment shall be installed in accordance with the approved scheme, and retained in good working order to the satisfaction of the Borough Council.

[To protect the amenities of nearby residents and to comply with policy GP2


13. An A3 use shall not be commenced until details of an extract ventilation

system for the cooking area have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council and the approved system shall be installed and used at all time when cooking is in progress.

[To protect the amenities of the area and to comply with policy GP2 (Design

and Amenity Criteria) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan].

14. No operations shall commence on site until the existing trees and/or hedges

which are to be retained on the adjacent land have been protected in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Borough Council and that protection shall be retained for the duration of the construction period. No materials, machinery or vehicles are to be stored or temporary buildings erected within the perimeter of the fence, nor is any excavation work to be undertaken within the confines of the fence without the written approval of the Borough Council. No changes of ground level shall be made within the protected area without the written approval of the Borough Council.

[To ensure existing trees are adequately protected during the development

and to comply with policy EN13 (Landscaping Schemes) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan].

NOTES TO APPLICANT This Authority is charging for the discharge of conditions in accordance with revised fee regulations which came into force on 6 April 2008. Application forms to discharge conditions can be found on the Rushcliffe Borough Council website. The fume extraction scheme should include both projected noise levels and details of equipment installed to suppress and disperse fumes and/or odour produced by cooking and food preparation. In addition the following advice is given by the Head of Environmental Health:- (a) The extract vent should terminate no less than 0.6 m (ideally 1m) above the

ridge of the building and not less than 1m above any openable window/skylight. (Please advise the applicant that the extract vent should be installed internally as far as possible, if there is a likelihood of conflict with any planning requirements);

(b) the system must be in use at all times when cooking is carried out in the

premises; (c) details of the expected noise levels generated by the fan, which are required

49

to be supplied, must include full octave band analysis; (d) all mountings and fixings shall incorporate anti-vibration mounts in order to

reduce airborne and structure-borne noise transmission; (e) the extract vent should not be fitted with any restriction at the final opening i.e.

cap or cowl; and, (f) the system should be designed to allow the collection and removal of

rainwater in order to prevent water entering the fan unit. Prior to preparing the scheme you are advised to discuss the details with the Borough Council on 0115 9148276 or 0115 9148485. You are advised to ensure disturbance to neighbours is kept to a minimum during construction by restricting working hours to Monday to Friday 7.00am to 7.00pm, Saturday 8.00am to 5.00pm and by not working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. If you intend to work outside these hours you are requested to contact the Environmental Health Officer on 0115 9148322. The provisions of the Party Wall Act 1996 may apply in relation to the boundary with the neighbouring property. A Solicitor or Chartered Surveyor may be able to give advice as to whether the proposed work falls within the scope of this Act and the necessary measures to be taken. This permission does not give any legal right for any work on, over or under land or buildings outside the application site ownership or affecting neighbouring property, including buildings, walls, fences and vegetation within that property. If any such work is anticipated, the consent of the adjoining land owner must first be obtained. The responsibility for meeting any claims for damage to such features lies with the applicant. This grant of planning permission does not alter the private legal situation with regard to the carrying out of any works involving land which you do not own or control. You will need the consent of the owner(s) involved before any such works are started. This permission does not give any consent needed to display advertisements.

50

14/00131/FUL

Applicant Mrs Nicola Marriott Location Land South Of Woodend Farm, Owthorpe Road, Cotgrave Proposal Retention of existing dwelling for occupation by rural worker Ward Cotgrave

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 1. The application relates to land at Woodend Farm which is located in open

countryside within the Green Belt to the south of Cotgrave. It is used in connection with a livery business which was established in 1990. The vehicular access to the complex of buildings at this location is on a minor road which leads from Owthorpe Road and serves a number of farms and properties on the western side of the A46. The access road has a total length of 480m. Woodend Farm comprises of a farmyard with four stable buildings; a horse exerciser, which is sited on the north-western side of the yard; two manèges; and about 7.5 hectares of pasture land. A public footpath/bridleway runs along the south-western boundary of the site. Beyond this is an area of woodland. A farm adjoins the holding on its northern side

2. A timber dwelling has been constructed immediately to the south of the group of farm buildings, without the benefit of planning permission. The main element of the dwelling is 13.9m long and 8.4m wide. It has a shallow pitched roof with an eaves height of 3.4m and a ridge height of 3.5m. There is a flat roofed element on the western side of the building which is 3.2m long and 7.8m wide. It has a flat roof and is joined to the main dwelling by a lobby.

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL 3. Planning permission is sought for the retention of the dwelling in connection

with the livery business. The applicant’s agent has submitted a supporting statement with the application. The main points made in the statement can be summarised as follows: x The land at Woodend Farm is used to operate a livery business which

has been established since 1990 and currently stables 32 horses. The business is viable and occupies a favourable location with access to a bridleway. Demand for livery places remains high.

x The livery is a family run enterprise from which the applicant derives her

livelihood. The business currently provides employment for two local people on a part-time basis, as well as an apprentice. It also supports local businesses including farriers, veterinary practices, feed merchants and ground workers/labourers.

51

x There is a clear and functional need for the applicant to be present at the site in terms of the efficient operation of the business, that is the need to respond quickly to emergencies, to protect the health and welfare of the horses and to provide for their security.

x The dwelling, which is occupied by the applicant, her husband and their

three children, is a discreet and modest structure with a floor space of about 125 m², which is sited close to existing stables and an all-weather manège.

x The building construction is such that it can be removed in the event that

the livery use were to cease. The agent has provided accounts for the three financial years ending 31 March 2012, which are confidential but show a profit for each of the three years.

SITE HISTORY 4. In 1986, planning permission was granted for the change of use of part of an

existing stud farm to a livery business (Ref: 86/00623/B1P).

5. Planning permission was granted in 1995 (Ref: 95/00931/FUL) for a stable block.

6. Planning permission was refused in 1997 for a two-storey, five bedroom detached house to serve the livery (Ref: 97/00327/FUL).

7. Planning permission was granted in 2005 (Ref: 05/01653/FUL) for a hay/farm machinery store and the formation of a new vehicular access and associated private way.

8. Planning permission was refused in 2007 (Ref: 07/00622/FUL) for the use of land to site a temporary dwelling (log cabin) in connection with a livery business and an appeal was dismissed in 2008.

9. Planning permission was granted in 2008 (Ref: 08/01451/FUL) for an all-weather manège.

10. Planning permission was granted in 2009 (Ref: 09/01165/FUL) for the relocation and extension of 2 stable buildings. Planning permission was also granted (Ref: 09/0166/FUL) for an agricultural building.

REPRESENTATIONS Ward Member 11. One Ward Member does not object to the application. They are satisfied that

the dwelling is used in connection with the running, management and security of the farm and equestrian facilities, which require people to be on hand all the time. They consider that it is in keeping with the surroundings and farm buildings.

52

12. One Ward Member does not object to the proposal. They are very supportive of rural activities which offer employment prospects.

Town/Parish Council 13. The Cotgrave Town Council does not object to the proposal.

Statutory and Other Consultees 14. The Nottinghamshire County Council as Highway Authority does not object to

the proposal.

Local Residents and the General Public 15. The Chief Executive of Stubbing Court Training, who run a Horse Care

Apprenticeship Scheme, supports the application. She considers that 24 hour care and supervision is essential due to the unpredictable nature of horses, the paramount importance of providing necessary horse health care at all times and the safety of those administering the treatment.

16. Representations supporting the application have been received from 10 local

residents. Eight of these are from persons who currently have horses at the livery, one is from someone who kept horses there in the past and one is from the owners of the Trowel Stud. With exception of the latter, all the representations state the importance of a full-time presence on site from the animal welfare perspective. Some also make mention of security.

PLANNING POLICY 17. The application falls to be considered against guidance in the National

Planning Policy Framework and policies GP2 (Design and Amenity Criteria), EN14 (Protecting the Green Belt) and HOU4 (New Dwellings in the Countryside) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan.

Relevant National Planning Policies and Guidance 18. The National Planning Policy Framework carries a presumption in favour of

sustainable development and states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole or specific polices in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. Of particular relevance in this case are: Paragraph 28 of the document, which is concerned with supporting economic growth in rural areas; paragraph 55, which is concerned with the siting of housing in rural areas; and paragraphs 79 to 92, which relate to development within the Green Belt. Paragraph 28 states, inter-alia that planning policies should promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based businesses. Paragraph 55 states that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. Paragraph 89 states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new

53

buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are buildings for agriculture and forestry.

Relevant Local Planning Policies and Guidance

19. The Replacement Local Plan has been used in decision making since 2007

and its policies carry significant weight. Policy GP2 is concerned with issues of design and amenity and the effect of proposals on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. Policy EN14 lists the categories of development which are considered to be appropriate within the Green Belt. These include agriculture and forestry. Policy HOU4 states that new dwellings will not be permitted outside settlements unless they are necessary for the purposes of agriculture or other activities appropriate to the countryside and where it can be demonstrated that:

a. The existing business is financially sound;

b. There is a long-term need verified by an expert report; c. The need for accommodation cannot be reasonably met in a nearby

settlement; and d. The dwelling cannot be provided by a temporary building or reasonable

conversion of buildings on the site. It goes on to say that the dwelling size should be appropriate to the functional needs of the business.

APPRAISAL 20. Planning permission for a dwelling to serve the livery was refused in 1997 for

two reasons. The first was that no justification had been submitted to substantiate a new dwelling related to a rural activity and the proposal was therefore considered to be an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt. The second was that the siting of the dwelling was poorly related to the stables and the size of the dwelling was excessive. It was considered that the proposal would therefore be visually detrimental to the openness and character of this Green Belt location.

21. An application for a temporary dwelling on a site adjoining that of the current proposal was refused in 2007 for two reasons. The first was that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the equestrian enterprise was likely to become financially viable and able to support a permanent dwelling in the future. The second was that the functional needs of the enterprise could continue to be met from the applicant’s existing dwelling or from the village of Cotgrave. An appeal against the refusal of planning permission was dismissed. The Inspector appointed to determine the appeal considered that the tests in Annex A of PPS7 had not been met and it had not been demonstrated that a new dwelling was essential to support the enterprise. Other accommodation in the area was available which could meet the functional need.

54

22. The supporting statements provided by the agent state that the enterprise has grown significantly since the appeal decision in 2008. In 2007, there were a total of 28 horses at the site which comprised of 10 full liveries, 5 part liveries and 13 DIY liveries. In dealing with the appeal in 2008, the appointed Inspector acknowledged the intentions of the appellant to develop the business to concentrate on full time liveries and breeding with 17 full time liveries and the brood mares also being used in a new trekking facility. He also acknowledged that such an increase in the business would put more onus on the livery yard owner to provide supervision and would be more labour intensive. However, she was not convinced that the increase in numbers of liveries and brood mares proposed at that time would introduce such a change that it would not be possible to continue to provide adequate supervision from the appellant’s existing property or a property within Cotgrave.

23. There are now a total of 32 horses at the livery. The applicant is wholly responsible for the total care of 18 horses, including the full liveries, young horses for future, the brood mare and those being broken in and used for schooling. There are 14 part/DIY liveries. Two of the three planning permissions granted in 2008 and 2009 have been implemented, which is considered by the agent to show a commitment to the development of the enterprise. The agent has also pointed out that PPS7 has been superseded by the NPPF which seeks to support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas.

24. The proposal does not fall within any of the categories of appropriate development within the Green Belt outlined in paragraph 89 of the NPPF or in policy EN14 of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan and very special circumstances will need to exist to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by inappropriateness. The main issue in the consideration of this application is therefore whether there are very special circumstances in this case which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by inappropriateness.

25. The Borough Council’s Agricultural Consultant considers that there is no equestrian support for the retention of the dwelling as, in his opinion, the enterprise is unable to pass the functional test, is financially unviable and is unable to sustain the cost of the proposal. It was established at the time of the 2008 appeal that the enterprise had a labour requirement of 4.88 full-time workers and that the labour costs in the budget were unrealistic. The applicant works at the livery on a full-time basis. In addition, there are two part-time workers, who work limited hours and an apprentice. This falls short of the 4.88 full-time workers referred to in 2008. The applicant’s husband and children work at the livery for free, on a part-time basis. The Consultant has referred to the appeal decision which stated that the cost of labour should be included whether paid or not as any future operator of the business may not have the ability to work the hours that the applicant and her family do for little or no return. The applicant’s salary is taken as drawings and not as PAYE. The Consultant has pointed out the drawings in 2012 exceeded the net profit for the year by a considerable amount. Finally, he has stated that there are other dwellings in the area which are suitable, available and capable of fulfilling any essential/functional needs of the enterprise.

55

26. In response to the Consultant’s comments, the agent has stated that the business has traded successfully for 24 years and during that time has made a valuable contribution to the local economy. The enterprise has continued to grow since 2008. The availability of accommodation within a mile of the application site has been investigated by the applicant and the agent but no suitable properties have been found, either for rent or for sale. The applicant’s former house in Tollerton has been sold.

27. The advice from the Council’s consultant concludes that the existing business is not financially sound and that the need for the dwelling has not been verified. The proposal does not therefore comply with policy HOU4 of the Replacement Local Plan. It is not considered that very special circumstances exist which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by inappropriateness in this case and the proposal is therefore contrary to advice in the NPPF and policy EN14 of the Replacement Local Plan. Although substantial weight should be given to the contribution the enterprise is making to the local economy and to the NPPF’s support for rural business, it is not considered that this outweighs Green Belt policy.

28. There is a fundamental policy objection to the proposal and it is considered that this cannot be overcome. However, discussions have taken place with the agent in an attempt to address a number of issues and to limit the reasons for refusal to that which cannot, in the opinion of the Borough Council, be overcome and reduce the areas for debate in any subsequent appeal.

RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused for the following reason:- 1. The proposal is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the equestrian enterprise the dwelling serves has been planned on a sound financial basis and is capable of sustaining the cost of the dwelling in the future and has also failed to demonstrate a functional requirement for the dwelling. There are other dwellings in the area that would be capable of fulfilling any essential functional needs of the enterprise. No very special circumstances are considered to exist in this case to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by inappropriateness and the proposal does therefore not comply with guidance in paragraphs 87 and 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy EN14 of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Local Plan.

56

14/00823/FUL

Applicant Mr & Mrs Stanley Location Site To The Rear Of 5 & 7 Nottingham Road, Cropwell Bishop Proposal New dwelling Ward Wiverton

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 1. The application site extends to approximately 184 sq metres and comprises a

former garden area which has recently been surfaced with rolled stone. This surfaced area extends to the north of the site and has a vehicular access to Nottingham Road. This access is shared with the car park of the Wheatsheaf Public House, which adjoins the site to the west and is a Listed Building. The access also serves the double garage of no. 3 Nottingham Road and provides parking facilities for no’s. 5 and 7.

2. The southern boundary of the site comes to within 6 metres of the field boundary, which also forms the boundary with the Green Belt.

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL 3. It is proposed to construct a two bedroomed dwelling on the site, the first floor

accommodation being in the roofspace, served by dormer windows to the front and rear.

4. The dwelling would have a ridge height of 7 metres and eaves height of 3.4 metres. A parking space would be provided on the hard surfaced area referred to above with access to Nottingham Road.

5. The proposed dwelling would have a rear garden of some 65 square metres

and front garden of 34 square metres. SITE HISTORY 6. There is no relevant site history. REPRESENTATIONS Ward Member 7. The Ward Member does not object. Town/Parish Council 8. The Parish Council does not object.

57

Statutory and Other Consultees 9. The Nottinghamshire County Council as Highway Authority has commented

as follows:-

“Vehicular access into the site is from a shared crossing located between 7 Nottingham Road and the Wheatsheaf Public House. Nottingham Road is a distributor road that links the A46 to Cropwell Bishop and is subject to a 30mph speed limit fronting the site. To make this development viable, the Highway Authority would require a visibility splay of 2.4m x 43m in both directions. In this instance, visibility at the crossing is severely restricted by the building lines of the aforementioned properties, and measure just 2.4m x 7m to the right and 2.4m x11m to the left. The presence of a bend to the right of the crossing further restricts visibility for drivers as they edge out onto the carriageway.

It would appear that the rationalisation for the additional dwelling has been made by reducing the number of spaces for an existing dwelling that is served by the crossing. However the number of vehicles associated to each property cannot be controlled nor conditioned, and is likely to change over time.

The Highway Authority does not want to permit any additional trips taking place at the crossing over and above the maximum that can be already be generated. The proposed dwelling will generate trips above that maximum, and is likely to result in collisions taking place on the public highway which is not acceptable.

The recommendation is therefore to refuse planning permission in the interest of highway safety”.

10. The Borough Council’s Conservation Officer has drawn attention to the

proximity of the site to the neighbouring Wheatsheaf public house, which is a Grade II listed building. He has pointed out that the site is separated from the listed building by a range of outbuildings and whilst there would be a degree of inter visibility, the impact on the setting of the listed building would be minor.

Local Residents and the General Public 11. One letter raising no objection has been received. PLANNING POLICY 12. The application falls to be determined in accordance with policies HOU2

(Development on Unallocated Sites) and GP2 (Design and Amenity) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Plan and Government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

Relevant National Planning Policy and Guidance

13. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of

58

sustainable development, look for solutions rather than problems, and decision takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

14. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The environmental role refers to ‘contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment’.

15. One of the Core Principles states that planning should ‘always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings’.

16. A further core principle relates to heritage assets and the NPPF requires that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations.

17. The NPPF also requires that plans should create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflict between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians.

Relevant Local Planning Policies and Guidance

18. Policy HOU2 sets out a number of criteria for the development of unallocated sites, including that the development of the site should not detrimentally affect the character or pattern of the surrounding area or the settlement as a whole and should not extend the built up area of the settlement.

19. Policy GP2 states that planning permission for new development will be granted so long as, inter alia, there is no adverse effect on the amenity of nearby dwellings, the scale, design and layout are sympathetic to the surrounding area, sufficient private garden area can be provided for future occupants and a suitable means of access and car parking can be provided.

APPRAISAL 20. The proposed development would constitute a form of backland development

which would extend this part of the built up area towards open countryside, which is designated Green Belt. However, the character of Nottingham Road and Fern Road is a mixture of frontage development and development in depth and it is not, therefore, considered that permission could be refused on the basis that the proposals would be out of keeping with the pattern or character of development in the vicinity and, therefore, contrary to policy HOU2.

21. The nearest dwellings are no’s. 3, 5 and 7 Nottingham Road, all of which have habitable room windows overlooking the area which would give access to the site. Also, no’s 5 and 7 have only small private rear gardens. The proposed development would result in increased traffic as a result of residents car use, deliveries, etc. which, it is considered, would result in noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of the occupants of those dwellings. Whilst it is likely that these properties experience some disturbance from the pub car park, the car park is largely screened by outbuildings.

59

22. The County Council has pointed that for a development of this nature, served

from a distributor road with a 30 mph speed limit, visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m would normally be required, whereas visibility of 2.4m x 7m to the right and 2.4m x 11m is only available. In view of this, it is considered that increased traffic movements at this junction would be detrimental to highway safety.

23. In view of the above, it is considered that the development would be contrary to the relevant parts of policy GP2 and that this would outweigh the general support for housing in rural areas advocated by the NPPF.

24. The proposal was the subject of pre-application discussions and the agent was made aware of the policy objections and/or identified unacceptable impacts of the development. The agent chose to submit the application without making any amendments to the proposal. In order to avoid further abortive costs to the applicant, the application has not been subject to further negotiations and is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused subject to the following reason(s):- 1. The proposed development would result in increased traffic, noise and

disturbance which would be detrimental to the amenities of nearby dwellings. It would also result in an increase in vehicular activity at an access which has substandard visibility at its junction with Nottingham Road, which would result in unacceptable highway hazards. The development would, therefore, be contrary to policy GP2 (Amenity and Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan and paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

60

14/00601/FUL

Applicant Mr Stephen Simpson Location 8 Lindy Close, Kinoulton, Nottinghamshire Proposal Side extension (two-storey and single storey) Ward Nevile

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 1. The application relates to a detached house dating from the early 1980's. It

has a car port to the side, which gives access to a garage to the rear. The frontage of the property is largely hard surfaced, providing parking for at least two vehicles. To the rear of the site there are older detached dwellings which front onto Main Street.

2. There is a 1.8m high fence on the common boundary with neighbouring dwelling at no. 7 Lindy Close. The corner of this dwelling is some 2.5m from the boundary and it has patio doors in the rear elevation, the centre point of which is some 3.8m from the corner of the dwelling.

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL 3. It is proposed to demolish the existing garage and erect a two-storey side

extension which would project approximately one metre forward of the existing front wall of the dwelling and 1.5m beyond the rear wall. To the rear of the two-storey section would be a single storey extension 7m in length.

4. The two-storey element would have an eaves height of 5m and ridge height of

6.5m. The single storey section would have eaves height of 2.3m and ridge height of 4m.

5. When originally submitted, it was proposed that the two-storey element would extend 2.3m beyond the existing rear wall and include a Juliet balcony in the first floor of the south-east elevation, however, amended plans were subsequently submitted which showed this section reduced to 1.5m, the Juliet balcony replaced by a window, two small windows added to the rear elevation and the roof of the dwelling extended. The single storey element was also revised reducing the height of the ridge from 4m to 3.7m.

SITE HISTORY 6. In February 2014, planning permission was refused for a similar development

but including a two-storey rear projection of 3.5m, the reason for refusal related to the adverse impact on the neighbouring dwelling at 7 Lindy Close (13/02508/FUL).

61

REPRESENTATIONS 7. A total of 10 letters of objection have been received from 5 local residents.

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows :

a. The extension would be overintensive.

b. Loss of light, overshadowing and overbearing impact, particularly to no. 7 Lindy Close.

c. The front extension would reduce the area available for car parking. d. There would be no access to the rear for fire service. e. The development would be out of keeping in the street scene and would

be contrary to policy GP2 of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan.

f. No consultation with neighbours has been carried out, though applicant

claims to have done so. g. There would be overlooking and loss of privacy due to the large front

glazed feature, the design of which would also be unsympathetic.

h. The proposal would breach the 45 degree rule in terms of loss of light. i. Other nearby extensions referred to by the applicant are not comparable. j. Neighbouring trees are not referred to.

Ward Member

8. The Ward Member has objected to the application. She is concerned over the

ultimate size of the property and considers the appearance is out of keeping with the streetscene. She is also concerned about potential overbearing impact and effect on the amenity of neighbouring residential amenity.

Town/Parish Council 9. The Parish Council has objected and commented: The Parish Council do not

feel that the revisions constitute a material change to the application. The Parish Council therefore continue to unanimously object strongly on the grounds previously submitted, size, appearance, loss of amenity and privacy to neighbours and that the application does not conform to the National Planning Policy Framework and the relevant Local Plan.

PLANNING POLICY 10. The National Planning Policy Framework and accompanying National

Planning Practice Guidance, the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan and the Rushcliffe Design Guide are all material planning considerations in the determination of this application.

62

Relevant National Planning Policies and Guidance 11. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) adopted in March 2012

would be the relevant national planning policy guidance. At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental. The environmental role refers to ‘contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment’.

12. One of the Core Principles states that planning should ‘always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings’.

13. Chapter 7, ‘Requiring good design’ states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Relevant Local Planning Policies and Guidance 14. Policy GP2 (Design and Amenity Criteria) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-

Statutory Replacement Local Plan is relevant in the consideration of this application, it states that planning permission for extensions will be granted provided that the scale, density, height, massing, design, layout and materials of proposals are sympathetic to the character and appearance of neighbouring buildings and surrounding areas; that they do not lead to an over-intensive form of development; that they are not overbearing in relation to neighbouring properties; and do not lead to undue overshadowing or loss of privacy.

APPRAISAL 15. The main considerations in respect of the present proposals are considered to

be the impact on neighbours in terms of loss of light, overlooking and overbearing impact, the appearance of the extension in the street scene and effect on parking provision.

16. Whilst concern has been expressed over the design of the proposed

extension, particularly the front, two-storey projection, and the possibility that it would dominate the original dwelling, it should be noted that its ridge height would be some 600mm lower than that of the existing dwelling. Also, whilst objections have been received relating to "closing the gap" and creating a terracing effect, a gap of some 2.5 metres would remain between the side of the extension and the neighbouring property at no.7. This, together with the front projection and lower ridge height, would prevent any undue terracing impact.

17. The large glazed feature to the front elevation is unusual but would add an element of variety in the street scene and, in view of the above reference in the NPPF to innovation and originality in design, would not in itself warrant a refusal of planning permission. Whilst concern has been expressed regarding overlooking and loss of privacy from this window, the nearest facing windows (5 Lindy Close) are some 25 metres away and, notwithstanding the size of the proposed window, the potential for overlooking would be little different to the

63

existing situation whereby first floor windows face to the front and overlook neighbours. The applicant has confirmed that this window would be tinted to prevent views into the bedroom.

18. With regard to possible loss of parking, sufficient space would remain for at

least two vehicles on the frontage plus the proposed garage.

19. As stated above, planning permission was previously refused for a two-storey and single storey extension, the main concern being the impact of the two-storey section on the neighbouring property at no. 7. The present proposals show this section reduced to a projection of 1.5m from the existing rear elevation. Whilst the neighbouring property at no. 7 has patio doors in the rear elevation, it is considered that, on the basis of the reduced scheme, the impact would be acceptable.

20. The single storey element would abut the common boundary and would

replace an existing structure which has a length of 5.6m, eaves height of 2.3m and ridge height of 3m where it abuts the common boundary. The proposed single storey extension would have an eaves height of 2.3m, ridge height of 3.7m, with a hipped roof. Bearing in mind the building it would replace, it is not considered that this in itself would have a sufficiently greater impact on the amenities of the neighbours to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

21. A number of representations refer to the “45 degree rule” with particular reference to the impact on the neighbour at 7 Lindy Close. This has no statutory bearing but is a useful tool in assessing the impact of a development in terms of loss of light when dealing with two-storey extensions and is referred to in our Residential Design Guide. The method involves projecting a horizontal line at 45 degrees from the centre of a habitable room window to give an indication of potential impact. An assessment has been made in respect of the present proposals which indicate that there would be no undue loss of light to the living room served by the patio doors referred to above.

22. In view of the above, it is considered that the proposals as amended would

comply with policy GP2 and guidance in the NPPF. 23. Negotiations have taken place during the consideration of the application to

address adverse impacts identified by officers and to address concerns/objections raised in letters of representation submitted in connection with the proposal. Amendments have been made to the proposal, addressing the identified adverse impacts, thereby resulting in a more acceptable scheme and the recommendation that planning permission be granted.

RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted subject to the following condition(s):- 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of the

facing and roofing materials to be used on all external elevations have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council and the development shall only be undertaken in accordance with the materials so approved.

64



3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

amended plan and elevations received on 24th June, 2014. [For the avoidance of doubt and to comply with policy GP2 (Design and


65

14/00680/FUL

Applicant Mr R Mason Location 3 Violet Road, West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire Proposal Proposed two-storey side extension and single storey extension at

front, side and rear; dormer window to rear and alterations to roof Ward Abbey

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 1. The application relates to an early 20th century detached property which is

currently being used as a dwelling house (Class C3). It is a red brick property with a painted render front elevation and red roof tiles. There is a uniform building design within the street including front gables and bay windows and there is a mix of detached and semi-detached properties. The area has an urban character and the neighbouring properties are primarily residential.

2. To the front of the property there is a low stone wall and timber gates. Vehicle access is provided off Violet Road. One off street vehicle parking space is currently provided to the front of the property. There are 2m high timber gates located between the application property and the side elevation of the neighbouring property no.5 Violet Road, the gates are level with the front elevation of the application property. A detached garage is located at the rear of the main building adjacent to the shared boundary with no.5 and a small shed is located adjacent to the side elevation of no.5. There is a 2m high fence and hedge located along the shared boundary with no.5. There is a low wall with fence panels above along the rear boundary and the side boundary shared with no.1 Violet Road which measures about 1.8m in height. There is a large garden at the rear of the property.

3. The property is located within an Environment Agency Floodplain, flood zones 2 and 3.

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL 4. The proposal is for a two-storey side extension, a single storey extension at

the front, side and rear, a dormer window to the rear and alterations to the roof. The two-storey side extension would project out 1.7m from the side elevation of the original house and measure 7.9m in length, 5.5m high to the eaves and 8.6m high to the ridge.

5. The single storey extension would project out 0.9m from the front elevation, 2.9m from the side elevation and 7.1m from the rear elevation of the original house. It would be in two parts separated by a gap of 4.4m. The front and side extension would measure 5.5m in length, 2.8m in width, 2.9m in height to the eaves and 4.8m in height to the ridge. The side and rear extension would

66

measure 5.9m in length, 7m in width, 2.7m high to the lower flat roof and 3.9m high to the upper flat roof.

6. The proposed dormer window would project out 3.5m from the rear roof slope and measure 2m in width and 2.1m in height with a dual pitched roof. The alterations to the roof include replacing the hipped roof with a half hip adjacent to the boundary with no.1 Violet Road.

7. The existing off street parking space would be retained at the front of the property. The single storey side extension would be set in 0.28m and the two-storey side extension would be set in 1m from the side elevation of no.5 Violet Road which is located on the shared boundary. The current gap between the adjacent side elevations of the application site and no.5 is 2.6m.

SITE HISTORY 8. Planning permission (ref. 02/01061/FUL) was granted in September 2002 for a

single storey rear extension, which has been implemented.

REPRESENTATIONS Ward Member 9. One Ward Member has no comments for or against the proposal.

10. One Ward Member objects on the grounds of loss of light and difficulty

maintaining the neighbouring property, particularly cleaning the staircase/landing windows.

Local Residents and the General Public 11. A letter of objection has been received from the neighbouring property, no.5

Violet Road. Their grounds for objection are summarised as follows: a. The extension by reason of its size, siting and design would represent an

un-neighbourly form of development detrimental to the amenity of their property by reason of overbearing/overshadowing effect, loss of light and restricted access to the west facing side of their property. • Three stained glass windows in side elevation located on boundary with

site. Two provide light to living room which has north facing window in rear elevation that does not get any direct sunlight and one large window provides light to hall and landing. There would be a 1.9m gap between the windows and the extension, meaning significant overshadowing and loss of light.

• There would be a 0.28m gap between the single storey extension and

side wall of their property. The close proximity of the building would mean they are unable to maintain that side of the building for most of its length and would be unable to access the area to clean their windows without having to go through their neighbours property.

67

b. By reason of its scale, bulk and subsequent proximity to their property it would be out of keeping with the design and character of existing dwellings and would have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area.

• Within the street houses are separated by driveways which give the

street an open aspect.

• The proposed garage would be level with the front elevation of the house meaning there would be virtually no space between the properties where previously there had been a driveway.

• The new garage would be too narrow to use as a garage.

• Locating the garage at the front of the house is inappropriate and

unsympathetic and detrimental to the appearance and character of the local environment.

• If granted, would open the gates for similar extensions, which would

transform the street from well spaces detached and semi-detached houses to what would look like a continuous terrace.

c. Due to proximity to their property could cause structural problems by

disturbing foundations, causing a damp problem and reducing access for maintenance. • Has been previous movement and a brickwork buttress has been

constructed adjacent to the front left hand corner of the front porch to stabilise this area.

• Had damp along left hand wall and concerned close proximity would

reduce airflow through air bricks.

• The inadequate access for maintenance would have a deleterious consequence on the structural integrity of their house.

d. The proposal would reduce the amount of legitimate car parking on the

site to an unacceptable level. x The proposal will permanently reduce the off road parking at no.3 to

one space as opposed to several cars. x There is a residents parking scheme and parking in the area is at a

premium therefore the extension will be detrimental to the street as a whole.

e. Should planning permission be granted would it be possible to get right of

access to maintain their property?

68

PLANNING POLICY Relevant National Planning Policies and Guidance 12. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the planning

system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental.

13. Paragraph 60 of the NPPF (Requiring good design) states planning decisions should:

• Not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they

should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

Relevant Local Planning Policies and Guidance 14. The proposal should be considered in relation to policy GP2 (Design and

Amenity) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan as well as additional guidance provided in Rushcliffe’s Residential Design Guide.

APPRAISAL 15. The proposal is for extensions to an existing dwelling house. The proposed

two-storey extension has been designed without a set back at first floor level or a drop in the ridgeline. It would however measure 1.7m in width which is less than one fifth of the width of the original dwelling. It is not therefore considered that it would dominate the original house. The front elevation would have a painted render finish and therefore a set-back would not be needed in this instance to key in the brickwork.

16. The proposed two-storey extension would be set in from the shared boundary and side elevation with the adjacent property no.5 Violet Road by 1m. No. 5 has a hipped roof adjacent to the boundary and a side facing dormer window which serves stairs and a landing. The front elevation of no.5 is set further forward and the ridge line is higher than the application property. Due to the separation distance, staggered building line and ridge heights and the design of the neighbour’s roof it is considered that the proposal would not lead to a terracing effect.

17. The inclusion of a half hipped roof adjacent to no.1 Violet Road reflects the

hipped roofs that are predominant within the street. The proposed front and side extensions would be traditional in design and materials, in keeping with the existing dwelling house and surrounding properties. The rear extension, which would not be visible from the street, would be a more modern design with flat roofs and large areas of glazing which would contrast with the original dwelling and add interest.

69

18. The proposed dormer window has been designed to match two existing dormer windows in the rear roof slope. The roof of the dormer would be pitched and the cheeks would be tile hung to match the main roof. There are a number of dormer windows in the side and rear roof slopes of neighbouring properties.

19. Within the street there is a pattern of driveways between dwellings with detached garages at the rear, although this is not the case for every property including the adjacent house no.1 and no.’s 2 and 4 Violet Road opposite the site. There is a similar extension within the street at no.42 Violet Road which includes a single and two-storey side extension with an integral garage.

20. The stained glass windows in the side elevation of no.5 Violet Road are an attractive feature however, they are not a feature that is prevalent within the street or that characterises the area. In addition due to the size of the existing gap between the side elevation of no.5 and the side elevation of the application property the windows are not a prominent feature within the street and are visible at oblique angles only when stood at the front of the application site.

21. On balance it is considered that the proposal would be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the neighbouring properties and the surrounding area as well as the host dwelling house.

22. The side elevation of the neighbouring property no.5 Violet Road is located on the shared boundary with the application site. There are two ground floor, one first floor and one second floor windows located in the side elevation of no.5. The ground floor windows are secondary windows serving a living room, the first floor window serves a hall, stairs and landing and the second floor dormer windows serves stairs and a landing. The windows in this elevation are west facing.

23. The existing gap between these windows and the side elevation of the application site measures 2.7m, as a result of the proposed two-storey extension this would be reduced by 1.7m. The distance between the proposed single storey extensions and the side elevation of no.5 would be reduced by 2.4m. The proposed single storey extensions would be closer to the neighbour’s windows and higher than the garage, shed and timber gates they would replace.

24. The first and second floor windows serve circulation space, not a habitable room. At ground floor level, the circulation space is also served by a glazed door and surround located in the south facing front elevation. The ground floor windows are secondary windows serving a habitable room which is also served by a large glazed bay window, however it is accepted that light through this window is limited by its orientation. At present the amount of light gained through the existing ground floor side windows is already limited by the height and proximity of the application property. On balance, it is not considered that the level of overshadowing would be significantly greater than the existing situation or that any loss of light would have a significant or unacceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property.

70

25. The proposal includes obscure glazed openings in the side elevation. A condition has been recommended to ensure this is provided as there would be no boundary treatment between the application site and the neighbouring property at this point. The proposed dormer window would be located over 20m from the rear boundary and almost 50m from the neighbouring properties at the rear. It is considered that subject to the inclusion of the recommended conditions the proposal would not lead to any undue overlooking or loss of privacy.

26. The application property currently has one off street parking space. The area

at the side of the house, which historically would have been used for parking, currently houses a small shed. Access to this area is restricted by the supporting buttress which projects out from the side elevation of no.5 Violet Road and a set of steps that project out from the side elevation of the application property which makes it difficult to park a modern car in this area. It is considered that the proposal would result in no change to the level of parking provision on site. On street parking is restricted by the existing residents parking scheme which should help mitigate any potential harm to the amenity of the area caused by increased cars parked on the street.

27. The ability to gain access to an external wall or window for the purpose of carrying out maintenance is not a material planning consideration and therefore cannot be afforded any weight in the consideration of this planning application.

28. The side elevation of no.5 Violet Road is currently separated from the side elevation of the application property by the existing driveway. Due to the location of no.5’s side elevation on the boundary any maintenance etc. currently has to be carried out by gaining access from the application site. The proposal includes a small recessed area that would allow the windows at ground floor in the side of no.5 to be maintained or cleaned. Therefore in both the existing and proposed situations access for maintenance to the side elevation of no.5 can only take place from within the application site. The one difference would be that part of no.5’s side elevation would no longer be easily accessible externally. It would not be possible to secure access for the owners of no.5 by planning condition but an advisory note to the applicant has been suggested for inclusion on the decision notice.

29. Planning legislation and policies do not cover methods used to carry out construction work including digging foundations. I am satisfied that there are sufficient controls outside the remit of planning which would ensure the work carried out would not undermine the safety and stability of adjacent properties and land.

30. The potential for development to cause damp to neighbouring properties is not a material planning consideration. A minimum gap of 0.28m would be retained between the proposed development and the adjacent property no.5 Violet Road. This gap should allow for some airflow to be maintained. The proposal has been designed with side gables adjacent to the shared boundary and therefore any guttering would be located on the front and rear elevations of the building.

71

31. The proposed development is in accordance with the relevant criteria in the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework policies listed in this report, as well as additional guidance provided in the ‘Residential Design Guide’, and there are no material considerations which outweigh these policies. It is considered that the proposal would be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area and would not lead to undue harm to residential amenity.

32. The proposal was subject to pre-application discussions with the agent and advice was offered on the measures that could be adopted to improve the scheme and address the potential adverse effects of the proposal. As a result of this process, modifications were made to the proposal, in accordance with the pre-application advice, reducing delays in the consideration of the application and resulting in a recommendation to grant planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted subject to the following condition(s):- 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years

beginning with the date of this permission. [To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as

amended by the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004]. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

plans ref.213-352-P06 Rev.E, P07 Rev. C, P08 Rev.E, P09 Rev.D, P10 Rev.B and P11 Rev.A received on 08 April 2014.



3. The materials specified in the application shall be used for the external walls

and roof of the development hereby approved and no additional or alternative materials shall be used.



4. The ground floor window and door in the east elevation of the proposed

development shall be fitted with glass which has been rendered permanently obscured to Group 5 level of privacy or equivalent. Thereafter, the window shall be retained to this specification. No additional windows shall be inserted in this elevation.

[To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring property and to

comply with policy GP2 (Design and Amenity Criteria) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan].

72

NOTES TO APPLICANT The owner of the neighbouring property claims that there is a legal right of access to your ground in order to maintain that property. You may wish to seek legal advice as to whether that is the case. This grant of planning permission does not override or supersede any such right. This permission does not give any legal right for any work on, over or under land or buildings outside the application site ownership or affecting neighbouring property, including buildings, walls, fences and vegetation within that property. If any such work is anticipated, the consent of the adjoining land owner must first be obtained. The responsibility for meeting any claims for damage to such features lies with the applicant. You are advised that your property falls within an area identified to be at risk of flooding in the Environment Agency's Flood Risk Maps. It is therefore recommended that the design and construction of the extension incorporates advice with regard to flood resilience and resistance techniques which is available to view on the Environment Agency's website.

73

14/00826/FUL

Applicant Mrs Debbie Davies Location 1 Melton Road, Tollerton, Nottinghamshire Proposal Front and side extensions to bungalow ; dormers to side and rear;

replace flat roofs with pitched roofs Ward Tollerton

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 1. The application relates to a detached, dormer bungalow finished in cream

render with a red tiled roof. The property is located on the edge of the village of Tollerton and is the first property as you enter the village, bordering onto open countryside. The property fronts onto Melton Road and is afforded a large, block paved front ‘garden’ partially screened to the west by a timber fence and the adjoining native hedge. The property has a single storey flat roofed integral single garage built to the east side of the property and there is a passage between the integral garage and the timber fence that separates the site from the neighbouring property (3 Melton Road) to access the rear of the property. To the rear of the property there is a large garden which is bounded by a mixture of timber panel fencing and evergreen conifers planted alongside, all at a minimum height of 1.8m.

2. The applicant’s property is a dormer bungalow whereas the majority of the other properties fronting onto Melton Road are two-storey, detached dwellings. The neighbouring property (3 Melton Road) is a two-storey detached dwelling and the garden of this property is “L” shaped and wraps around the rear of the applicant’s garden. On the opposite of Melton Road to the applicant’s property and to the immediate west is open countryside within the Green Belt. There are no residential properties on the southern side of Melton Road.

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL 3. The application seeks planning permission for front and side extensions to the

bungalow, dormers to the side and rear elevations and for replacing the flat roofs with pitched roofs. The extensions include a small porch to the front elevation measuring 2m wide, 0.6m deep and 3.7m high to ridge, 2.4m to eaves and a small extension to the front, south-west corner of the property measuring 3.5m wide, 3.2m deep with the ridge and eaves heights the same as the main bungalow. Other than these additions there is no enlargement of the existing footprint, as the proposals involve enlarging the existing first floor within the roof-space.

4. To the western (side) elevation the application proposes adding a side facing dormer window that would look onto the adjoining agricultural field and the existing flat roofed extension would have a pitched roof added to it. To the eastern (side) elevation it is proposed to convert the existing garage to living

74

accommodation, with a single window in the side elevation at ground floor level (serving a shower room) and a gable roof above with the ridge and eaves height to match the existing property.

5. On the rear elevation the application proposes removing the existing, small, centrally located flat roofed dormer and replacing it with two separate, rear facing dormers. One of the rear facing dormers would be a small, pitched roof dormer measuring 1.6m wide, 2m deep and 2m high located slightly off-centre to the west. The other dormer window would be a larger, flat roofed dormer that would extend across about half the width of the rear roof slope from the eastern edge to about the centre point. The flat roof dormer would measure 7.7m wide, 3.5m deep and 2.7m high and would sit just below the ridge of the main dwelling by about 200mm. On the front elevation it is also proposed to insert three roof lights in the front (south) facing roof slope between the proposed porch and the converted garage at the eastern edge of the property.

6. As a result of officer discussions an amended plan was submitted, revising the position of the openings in the rear elevation. The revisions involve moving a Juliette balcony and doors to a more central location within the box dormer and relocating the shower room window towards the end elevation so that this opening would be closest to the common boundary with 3 Melton Road. Further consultation was undertaken with the neighbours, Parish Council and Ward Member.

SITE HISTORY 7. An application (Ref: 80/00176/SOUTH) to erect a detached sun lounge was

approved in May 1980. REPRESENTATIONS Ward Member 8. One Ward Member objects stating, “Due to the unusual positioning of the two

dwellings the applicant’s extension into the roof space is overbearing and intrusive.”

Town/Parish Council 9. Tollerton Parish Council objects to the proposal stating, “Juliette balcony could

have a potential impact on the neighbour, will be overlooking and have an impact on the light to the neighbour.”

Statutory and Other Consultees 10. None Local Residents and the General Public 11. One letter has been received, objecting on grounds that, due to the

unfortunate positioning of the two dwellings number 1 already results in overshadowing of number 3. The proposed alteration to the roof design, from a hipped to a gable roof will further increase the degree of overshadowing.

75

Furthermore, the design of the rear flat roof dormer will allow complete observation across the entire rear garden resulting in unacceptable loss of privacy. It is not clear why the applicants haven’t chosen to extend to the other side of the bungalow where it would not interfere with the current limited light available to the rear windows.

12. The adjacent neighbour replied to the re-consultation on the amended plans stating, “there has been a slight amendment which will have little or no improvement at all to our stated position. I can only indicate that we remain opposed to the current plans.”

13. In addition, the owner of the adjoining farm land has expressed concerns regarding the width of the proposed extension to the front, south-west, corner of the property and its apparent encroachment over the boundary. The agent has submitted a further revised plan indicating that this element of the proposal would be reduced to 3.4m wide instead of the previously stated 3.5m, which the applicant feels would avoid any such encroachment. An amended plan and photographs showing what is said to be the legal position of the boundary, indicated by metal stakes in the farmer’s field rather than the fence or hedgerow, were provided.

14. The adjacent landowner remained concerned about the possibility of any guttering, soffit or facia boards projecting out onto his land and the agent has subsequently provided a further amendment indicating that a boundary wall gutter would be used and therefore no guttering, soffit or facia would extend beyond the side wall of the extension.

PLANNING POLICY 15. The relevant statutory policies that form part of the Development Plan for

Rushcliffe consist of the 6 saved policies of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan 1996.

16. Other material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the recently published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), the emerging Rushcliffe Publication Core Strategy (March 2012) and the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan (2006).

17. Any decision should therefore be taken in accordance with the NPPF and NPPG; policies contained within the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan where they are consistent or amplify the aims and objectives of the Framework and the emerging Rushcliffe Core Strategy together with other material planning considerations.

Relevant National Planning Policies and Guidance 18. The NPPF, at Para.17 sets out the overarching roles that the planning system

ought to play, setting out 12 principles of planning. One of these is to “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.”

76

Relevant Local Planning Policies and Guidance 19. Policy GP2 (Design and Amenity Criteria) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-

Statutory Replacement Local Plan is relevant to the consideration of this application. Policy GP2 states that planning permission for new development, changes of use, conversions or extensions will be granted provided that, where relevant, certain criteria are met. Criterion (d) is concerned with the scale, density, height, massing, design, layout and materials of proposals and states, inter-alia, that these should be sympathetic to the character and appearance of neighbourhood buildings and the surrounding areas. They should not lead to an over-intensive form of development, be overbearing in relation to neighbouring properties, nor lead to undue overshadowing or loss of privacy.

20. Advice given in the Rushcliffe Residential Design Guide adopted in March 2009 is also relevant. It states that, as a general rule, the style and design of the original dwelling should remain the dominant element with the extension subordinate to it. Furthermore page 48 of the Rushcliffe Residential Design Guide states inter alia that extensions should respect the residential amenity of neighbours and that extensions should not be overbearing or result in a loss of privacy.

APPRAISAL 21. The principal consideration in assessing these proposals is the impact of the

proposed development on the amenity of the adjoining occupier at 3 Melton Road. The two properties (1 and 3 Melton Road), along with the other properties fronting onto Melton Road all appear to have been built at the same time, however the fundamental difference is that 1 Melton Road is a bungalow and is set deeper in its plot than the other properties along this stretch of Melton Road. The properties are currently separated to the common boundary by a 1.8m high close boarded fence that extends along the side of the proposed alterations, forward and rear of this fence is a hedge at a minimum height of 1.8m but rising in height to the rear of the properties.

22. The representations received raise concern about potential overshadowing as

a result of the proposed works. The applicant’s bungalow is positioned such that the front elevation of the bungalow is located just forward of the current rear elevation of No.3. The bungalow is 7.3m deep with the integral, flat roofed garage being located closest to the common boundary. The application does not propose extending the bungalow any further to the rear or bringing the building any closer to the common boundary, however the box dormer would add mass to the roof slope when viewed from the rear of number 3 Melton Road.

23. To the side of 1 Melton Road is a path measuring 950mm wide. Similarly, to the side of 3 Melton Road there is also access linking the front and rear gardens, with the gap to the common boundary measuring 1600mm. 3 Melton Road has been extended to this side at some point in its past in the form of a two-storey side extension to the property. However the overall gap between the two buildings measures 2550mm. The levels are different between the two plots, with the land at the side of 1 Melton Road being approximately 500mm

77

lower than the equivalent point in the rear garden of No.3. It is also noteworthy that No.3 has recently been granted planning permission for a single storey rear extension to the property across the width of their dwelling, although this has not yet been implemented.

24. Part of the application involves the alteration to the garage roof by the addition of a gable ended roof structure with the ridge and eaves heights the same as those of the existing bungalow. To the rear of this new roof slope the proposed box dormer would project out a maximum of 3.4m from the roof slope, close to the side elevation. The applicant’s property is to the west of the neighbouring property at No.3 and therefore the proposal would have the greatest impact during the late afternoon/early evening as the sun sets. However, as the roof structure (excluding the box dormer) is a continuation of the existing roof structure, as soon as the sun passes further to the west to the point where its light hits the applicant’s existing property, no significantly greater overshadowing of the neighbour’s property than the current relationship would occur, as the mass of the proposed extension would be blocked from the path of the sun by the existing mass of the dwelling. It is acknowledged that the box dormer would add some mass to the roof structure but it is not considered that any additional overshadowing would be significant or unacceptable due to the orientation of the two buildings relative to one another, the overall height of the proposed additions to the bungalow, the level differences between the two sites and the degree of separation.

25. In respect of the character and the appearance of the proposal, the current dwelling has a mixture of roof designs, with varying ridge heights and flat roofed elements, a flat roofed dormer and a front feature gable. The current proposals would enlarge the roof, and in order to do so alterations are proposed to the roof design. The proposal, whilst not completely unified in its approach, does seek to remove some existing flat roofed elements and would be of an appropriate design. Due to its siting at the rear and lack of prominence within the street scene the proposed flat roofed box dormer to the rear elevation, whilst somewhat bulky in design, would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area to a degree to warrant refusal.

26. The relationship between the two properties would be different from the

current situation and the gap above the existing flat roofed garage would be “filled”. However the degree of separation between the two dwellings, in the order of 2.5m, and the fact that the bungalow is set deeper in its plot than 3 Melton Road would result in a degree of separation not uncharacteristic of those elsewhere in the street scene and would not result in a demonstrably harmful cramped or terracing effect.

27. With regard to concern about impact on the amenity and living conditions of the neighbouring property, 3 Melton Road the neighbours currently have a patio across the width of the rear of their property. As previously stated, there is planning permission for a single storey extension across the rear of this property. This permission would enlarge the existing kitchen, dining and lounge space, projecting out a further 2.1m from the current rear façade. The design of this extension includes a total of 6 roof lights within the proposed mono-pitch roof, 3 sets of full height patio doors and 3 other windows across the rear elevation. Whilst there can be no assurances that the neighbours will implement the permission, consideration has been given to this potential.

78

Given the number of openings proposed and their relative positions spaced across the rear of the approved extensions to No.3 it is not felt that the proposed alterations at No.1 would result in a differing assessment of the proposals acceptability. Therefore, it is considered that the relationship between the two buildings, regardless of whether or not the applicants at 3 Melton Road choose to implement their planning permission, would be acceptable.

28. The proposal would be visible from within the neighbour’s kitchen and lounge but the most visible element of this building would be the end gable elevation and not the flat roofed dormer which is set in from the gable and would be partially obscured by the roof given the angles involved. Given the existing relationship between the properties, with the neighbouring property being set forward of the applicants by such a degree it is considered that the proposal would not significantly overshadow the neighbours kitchen or lounge, and for the same reasoning, it is considered that the proposal would not be significantly overbearing as to warrant refusal.

29. In terms of overlooking and loss of privacy it was considered that the original scheme’s positioning of a large rear bedroom window within the box dormer, close to the side boundary would lead to overlooking of the rear garden of 3 Melton Road. The amended scheme moves the positioning of these proposed full height doors and Juliette balcony away from the closest point to the common boundary. This would place the window about 2.5m in from the side elevation and would face down the applicant’s garden in a similar manner to most residential developments. It is not considered that the potential to overlook from these full height doors is significantly greater than would be possible or achievable from any other form of window that might occupy this location. Therefore, subject to conditions, the relationship to the neighbouring properties in terms of privacy is considered to be acceptable.

30. The proposed alterations to the western side and south-western front corner of the property are not considered to be out of scale or out of keeping with the host property. Furthermore they are not considered to result in any overshadowing or loss of privacy. The issue of potential encroachment of the adjacent field appears to have been resolved and in any event matters of potential land ownership dispute are not planning considerations.

31. It is considered that the scale, location and design of the dwelling would not have a significant adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area and, subject to suitable conditions, would not lead to undue overlooking, overshadowing or result in an demonstrably harmful overbearing impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

32. Negotiations have taken place during the consideration of the application to clarify matters and to address potential adverse impacts identified by objections raised in letters of representation submitted in connection with the proposal. Alterations have been made to the proposal, addressing the potential issues, thereby resulting in an acceptable scheme and the recommendation to grant planning permission.

79

RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted subject to the following condition(s): 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plan(s): The Location Plan at 1:1250, the Block Plan at 1:500, the existing and proposed floor plans drawing received on the 2nd June 2014 and the proposed elevations and wall guttering drawing received on the 11th June 2014.



3. The extension(s) hereby permitted shall be constructed in suitable facing and

roofing materials to match the elevations of the existing property. [To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply


4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 Classes B and C of the Town and

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows shall be inserted in the roof(s) of the dwelling(s) other than shown on the approved plans and there shall be no alteration to the roof(s).

[The development is of a nature whereby future development of this type

should be closely controlled and to comply with policy GP2 (Design and Amenity Criteria) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan].

NOTES TO APPLICANT This permission does not give any legal right for any work on, over or under land or buildings outside the application site ownership or affecting neighbouring property, including buildings, walls, fences and vegetation within that property. If any such work is anticipated, the consent of the adjoining land owner must first be obtained. The responsibility for meeting any claims for damage to such features lies with the applicant. The provisions of the Party Wall Act 1996 may apply in relation to the boundary with the neighbouring property. A Solicitor or Chartered Surveyor may be able to give advice as to whether the proposed work falls within the scope of this Act and the necessary measures to be taken. You are advised to ensure disturbance to neighbours is kept to a minimum during construction by restricting working hours to Monday to Friday 7.00am to 7.00pm, Saturday 8.00am to 5.00pm and by not working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. If you intend to work outside these hours you are requested to contact the Environmental Health Officer on 0115 9148322.

Item 4 Planning Applications 10 July 2014

Documents