Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of two storey extensions to side and rear of property, new entrance canopy and new gate in boundary wall.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the erection of two storey extensions to side and rear of property, new entrance porch/canopy to front and new gate in boundary wall at 5 Church Gardens, Drighlington.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed during the discussion of the application.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The property occupied a prominent position in the corner of the Church Gardens development on the junction of the A58 and Back Lane.

·  Trees on the south-west boundary were covered by a Tree Protection Order (TPO).

·  There would be a ‘lean-to’ front porch and a wrap round two storey extension to the south east and south west of the property.  Materials to be used included a timber frame and zinc roof.

·  There would be alterations to the boundary wall to include pedestrian access and a gate.  The wall would also be raised to a height of 2.3 metres.

·  The proposals were considered to significantly detract from the host dwelling due to the corner position and the differing materials to be used.  The area was characterised by stone buildings.  The proposals would also interrupt the existing building line and the significant amount of glazing proposed was not sympathetic to the area.

·  Alternative suggestions had been proposed for the siting of an extension at the property but the applicant had wished to proceed with the current proposal.

·  The proposals would impact the canopy and root protection area of a protected tree.

·  The application was recommended for refusal due to the impact on the character of the area and impact on protected trees.

The applicant addressed the Panel in support of the application.  The following was highlighted:

·  The intention was to provide an external and internal living space to enjoy the garden and views.

·  The architect selected was nationally recognised and had produced award winning designs.

·  The tree survey from the previous development had been considered when the proposals had been designed.

·  There had not been any objections to the application and there was support from neighbouring residents.  There had not been an objection from the Council’s conservation team.

·  In response to the reasons for refusal, it was felt that the proposals did add to the character of the host building and this was also supported by neighbours.  Other properties in the area also had timber framed and glazed extensions.

·  The applicant had a tree report produced by an arboriculture consultant and their findings differed to those of the Council’s landscaping officer.

In response to comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  There had been communication to the applicant advising that the possibility of siting an extension to the southern section of the property away from the tree line should be explored.

·  The Principal Landscape Officer advised the Panel that the root protection area for the tree that would be affected and this had been submitted as part of the arboricultural impact assessment.  This had been done within the national standards and code of practice for trees in design and planning guidance.  The proposed extension would impact on the root system and the canopy would have to be trimmed back.

·  There had not been any objection from the conservation team.  They were only consulted on the potential impact on the listed building and not the design of the application.

·  There needed to be sufficient space between the tree and the building to take account for growing space and light to the building.  There was some scope to alter the proposals which would not conflict with the tree.

·  The contemporary design was not the main issue and a similar development to the south side of the property would be more suitable as it would be less prominent to the street and away from the trees.

·  An engineering solution for the tree root protection area would be difficult to achieve and there would still be issues with the proximity of the tree to the extension.

·  There was some support for the design and materials proposed.

·  The proposed extension was in the wrong place due to the trees.  An extension elsewhere on the site would be more suitable.

A motion was made to defer the application for further discussion with the applicant as to whether the location for the extension was appropriate with the acceptance of the contemporary design.  An amendment to this motion was made that the application should be refused due to the location not being suitable and the impact on trees.  The amendment was carried and the substantive motion was voted upon .

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as the proposed side and rear extension is considered to pose both significant short-term and long-term impacts on the adjacent trees, protected by a Tree Preservation Order, as a result of its proximity to the proposal and associated construction and future maintenance. As such, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policies P12 of the Core Strategy (as amended 2019), Policy LD1 of the Unitary Development Plan Review, Policy LAND2 of the Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan and the NPPF in these respects