Authorised Use
Relevant decisions
Technical Consultations
British waterways – The ditch on the east side of the site has been formally abandoned. The ditch was
transferred to the owners of the cottages in 2006. Further comments received stating that culvert may be
of historic/archaeological value
Ecology – Recommend protected species note as the proposal affects roof space and the site lies
adjacent to a potential SINC (Ecosite 26/57 – Hillmorton Radio Station).
Environment Agency – No objection.
Conservation officer – Concerns regarding culvert being developed to rear and the effect on important
historic feature. Incremental loss will degrade value of site’s unique interest and compromise
understanding of networks historic operation.
Warwickshire County Council Archaeology – Proposed development will disturb an important component
of 18thC canal complex. Support Conservation Officer’s comments on the negative impact that the
proposed development would have upon this important industrial complex.
Third Party Consultations
No comments received
Other relevant information
The property is a modern detached two-storey property located near Hillmorton. The property is outside
of the Rugby urban area.
Planning Policy Guidance
RBLP Policy GP1
RBLP Policy GP3
RBLP Policy H8
RBLP Policy E10
RBLP Policy H22
Design and appearance of development
Protection of amenity
Residential extensions
Development in conservation areas.
Extensions to houses in the countryside and Local Needs
Determining Considerations
The main issues concerning this application are the impacts of the proposal upon visual and residential
amenities and the character and appearance of the conservation area.
The proposal involves the construction of a two-storey extension measuring 2.2 metres width and 5.2
metres length. Four dormer windows are proposed in the front, side and rear roof slopes
GP1, H8
Report Sheet
The dwelling is relatively modern, built during the 1980s, and the proposed extension and dormer
windows are generally in keeping with the dwelling and are not considered harmful to its appearance.
The impacts of the proposal upon the conservation area are detailed below.
GP3, H8
The proposed extension is sited sufficiently away from neighbouring properties and does not appear
overbearing or restrict daylight to neighbouring properties. A window is proposed in the side elevation
facing no. 22, and this would afford a line of sight into the kitchen of this property. However, considering
the distance between the window and neighbouring kitchen (approximately 18 metres), and that no
representations have been received from this property, it is not considered harmful to amenity or to
warrant a condition requesting the use of obscure glazing.
The proposal involves building on top of the disused culvert to the rear of the dwelling. Concerns have
been raised by the conservation officer regarding the incremental loss of this feature, and these are as
“The site lies within the Hillmorton Locks Conservation Area which was designated for its valuable canal
history and archaeological remains.
The canal dates from the 1770’s and the ‘Lock’s’ was developed in the 1830’s and 40’s for the main
Northern Maintenance Yard. The site includes locks, dry docks, workshops cottages, boiler house and
pumping station. The first pumping station was built in 1789 the present one in 1902. The open feeder
stream which runs from the station to the north east probably dates from 1789 and is more or less intact
along the original track. This feature is an integral part of the canal complex and contributes to the
interpretation and understanding of the sites overall industrial archaeological. It is extremely important
that the integrity of such an historic feature is retained in its entirety. The incremental loss will degrade
the value of the sites unique interest and compromise understanding of the networks historic operation.
The proposed extension would truncate the route of the drain and cause irreparable damage to the
integrity of the channel. The personal need does not seem to be so great as to override the public
interest in the Area and the need to preserve the site’s historic or archaeological value.
It would be better to site the extension to the side i.e. as a narrower and lower mass to respond to
traditional forms of extension and to limit the visual mass of the general composition. The drain should
be left outside the residential curtilage to avoid lawful damage under PD rights.
The dormers are acceptable in principle since these could add interest to the roofscape. To reinforce
local identity however the from should be more traditional. Lead cladding to the whole envelope is rather
alien and more akin to ‘anywhere’ type, modern functional residential design.
The proposal does not preserve or enhance the Conservation Areas special interest, rather it cause
harm. I therefore recommend refusal as it stands. Amendments in line with that suggested above are
encouraged. Further discussion is encouraged.”
These comments have been supported by Warwickshire County Council’s Archaeology section, who
have stated that the proposed development will disturb an important component of 18thC canal complex
and have a negative impact on what is an important industrial complex.
Due to the negative impact upon the historic feature therefore, the proposal is considered harmful to the
conservation area and contrary to policy E10 of the local plan.
The proposed dormers are acceptable in principle. The conservation officer has commented that the
dormers should be more traditional to reinforce local identity, and that lead cladding to the whole
envelope is more akin to modern functional residential design. It is considered however that the dormer
windows are in keeping with the property, which is modern itself, and the curved roofs to the dormers are
considered to better reflect the existing fenestration. Overall it is considered that the dormers are
acceptable in terms of their impact upon the conservation area.
Report Sheet
The original house has a volume of approximately 394 cubic metres. The proposed extension and
dormer window amount to an increase of approximately 99 cubic metres. This represents an increase of
marginally over 25%, and is considered to comply with the provisions of policy H22.
Overall, the proposed extension is considered to be harmful to the conservation area by virtue of the
incremental loss to a historic feature.
The proposal is recommended for refusal.
Prepared by: M Needham 31/03/2008
Checked by: N. Freer 3/4/08
Report Sheet