Agenda item

Consideration was given to planning application 25/1945/FUL 74A Darlington Road, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18 5ET.

 

The application site related to a detached residential dwelling located within the limits to development and within Stockton-on-Tees.

 

Planning permission was being sought to raise the ridge height of part of the dwelling to enable a loft conversion with rooflights, to include the installation of cladding, the erection of a single storey infill extension to include canopy to the front and erection of a 1.8m high boundary wall/fence to the front.

A total of 21no objections had been received by members of the public. No objections had been received by technical consultees. In accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, the application was to be decided by Members of the Committee as more than 5 responses had been received by members of the public to the application following consultation and publicity.

 

Several concerns had been raised by members of the public; however, the main concerns related to the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the impact on the setting of Hartburn Conservation Area and the impact on the amenity of surrounding neighbouring occupiers which were addressed within the report. Other concerns raised had also been addressed within the report.

 

During the application process, the proposed extensions had been amended significantly due to character and amenity concerns. The amended plans had resulted in the reduction in scale of the extensions, which previously appeared as a two-storey extension, and had now been reduced to appear as 1.5 storey. It was considered that this design change would mitigate both character and appearance impacts, and overshadowing and overbearing impacts for surrounding neighbouring occupiers. In addition, overlooking of the neighbouring properties had been addressed through further amendments to the submitted plans by proposing to install rooflights to the principal elevation roof slope. The base of each rooflight would be 1.9 metres above the internal finished floor level which was considered to suitably mitigate the potential overlooking of the neighbouring dwelling to the north of the application site.

 

Overall, it was considered that the proposed development had been made acceptable through amendments in terms of its appearance and its impact on neighbouring occupiers. It was considered that the proposals were in general accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and the Development Plan policies and therefore the recommendation was to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the main report.

 

 Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the main report.

 

The planning policies and material planning considerations that were relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.

 

The Planning Officers report concluded that in view of the assessment contained within the report, it was considered that the proposed development would not result in any significant conflict with the policies contained within the Stockon on Tees Local Plan or the relevant chapters of the NPPF and there were no technical reasons why the proposed scheme would be deemed unacceptable.

 

In planning terms, the proposed development was considered acceptable in all other regards and was therefore recommended for approval subject to those planning conditions set out within the main report.

 

Objectors attended the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

 

- 1 resident explained that they would have to live with the consequences of the increased roof height and roof lights which would be overbearing. The applicant had originally proposed obscure glazing to the garage roof lights however was now proposing a film which could peel off.

 

- Concerns were raised relating to a lack of privacy on neighbouring properties. The 1.9 metre windowsill height did not prevent overlooking.

 

- A tree with a Tree preservation Order (TPO) had been felled without permission.

 

- Councillor Niall Inness made representation on behalf of a resident who would be affected by the proposal should it be approved. The application was overbeating and out of character in the conservation area of Hartburn.

 

- Had the historic buildings officer visited the site as they still had not responded to the consultation therefore how could it be recommended for approval.

 

- There were several bats which flew over the property; therefore, it was felt a bat survey was required.

 

The applicant’s agent attended the meeting and given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

 

- The applicant had listened to residents’ concerns and had made big changes to the proposal.

 

- The property sat well back from the main road and needed modernising.

 

- There was a mix of houses and styles in the area.

 

- The scheme was acceptable in terms of amenity, and the scheme had reduced the 1st floor level as well as dormer windows at the front of the property.

 

- The scheme accorded with the Councils guidance.

 

- Separation distances had been exceeded.

 

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows:

 

- There was a 14 metre separation distance and through further revisions a reduction in the height of the ridge and eves.

 

- Impact regards amenity to the neighbouring property was acceptable.

 

- Regards the tree that had been felled this was being looked at with a possibility of taking action. A replacement tree notice was likely to be produced

 

- There was no requirement for obscure glass due to the changes made to the height of the Velux Window which was now 1.9 metres.

 

Members were given the opportunity to ask questions / make comments. These could be summarised as follows:

 

- The property was right next to the conservation area in Hartburn and Velux Windows were not permitted in a conservation area. The property was surrounded on all 4 sides by other properties. Overshadowing was a concern.

 

- Officers were asked if they were satisfied with the separation distances from no. 74a and 72 as it looked below 13 metres.

 

- There appeared to be a lot of overlooking and shadowing.

 

- There would be adverse impact on amenity for 74 and 72 due to loss of light from the gable end.

 

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows:

 

- The proposed property was right next to the conservation area however was not in the conservation therefore Velux Windows were permitted

 

- Officers confirmed that in relation to no.72 officers were happy with impact of the rooflights and the height of the rear elevation. In terms of 74a officers were happy with the rear elevation and the separation distances also. 

 

- Members were informed that you would have to be taller than 6ft 2in to see out of the Velux Windows as the bottom of the windows were 6ft 2in and angled backwards.

 

- Officers explained the original scheme would have been overbearing however the improved scheme was considered acceptable

 

A vote took place and the application was refused.

 

RESOLVED that planning application 25/1945/FUL 74A Darlington Road, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18 5ET be refused for the reasons as detailed below:

 

Impact on the Amenity of the Occupiers of No.74 Darlington Road

 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, it is considered that the proposed increased ridge height and associated additional scale and massing, would have an overbearing and overshadowing impact on the occupiers of No.74 Darlington Road contrary to paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Local Plan Policies SD3 and SD8 and Householder Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Design Guidance