Supporting Statement
Proposed 1/2 storey side/rear extension
98, Villa Road, Stanway, Colchester, Essex CO3 0RN
1
Introduction
1.1
The Applicant previously submitted an Application [073005] for a ‘Two storey side and rear extension’
on 06 Dec 2007. It was refused 08 Feb 2008 and dismissed on Appeal 16 Oct 2008.
1.2
The Inspector found that in relation to the existing dwelling:
- ‘The extension would not be subordinate to it. It would add a substantial additional wing, not
articulated, and extending further back into the plot, eroding the limited space around the
dwelling. The extended roof would also be bulky and would fail to achieve the subordinate
relief considered to be appropriate by the Council.’
- Also, ‘Concerns by the Council that the tree could be threatened after development are quite
speculative in nature, and in my view do not represent a convincing case for resistance to the
proposal. In any case I do not judge the tree to be so important or vital to the amenity of the
area for its retention to represent a determining factor in this case. If it had been viewed in
these terms no doubt the Council would have imposed a protection order to safeguard the
tree.
- [Note: the tree is still not subject to a TPO, see constraints Map: 312/14/01a]
1.3
The Applicant has recently resurrected his wish to extend his dwelling and discussions have taken
place with the previous Case Officer on a revised design. The Case Officer’s comments on the latest
proposal are in Appendix 1.
1.4
Given that the Officer was relatively content with the latest proposal it has been decided to submit a
new Application.
2
The Proposal
2.1
Addressing the both the views of the Appeal Inspector’s in the Decision Letter and the guidance of the
Case Officer based on the Council’s previous Decision Notice the proposed extension has been
articulated in both plan and elevation to produce a design subordinate to the existing house.
2.2
All elevational frontages have been set back as they go around the extension and the rear 2 storey
part reduced to single storey.
2.3
The distance of the extension is now 500mm further away from the tree.
2.4
Concept
The concept for this proposal is a traditional design, using forms and details to match the existing
house. Roof form and details, window details, and materials are chosen to match the existing house.
2.5
Siting
- East elevation facing No’s 86 to 90 Villa Road
The extension does not encroach towards these properties and by continuing the modest height of
the existing house, 4.65m to eaves, ensures there is minimal material impact on their amenity. The
bulk of the building is 7.5m from the joint boundary ensures it will not be overbearing, restrict
outlook and there will be no loss of sun or daylight.
- North elevation facing the rear garden of No 84 Villa Road
The extension is 3.3m away from this boundary and with the modest height of the existing house
continued in to the outshot the bulk will not be overbearing or result in a loss of day light. Only a
single bathroom window is placed to the first floor facing the rear most part of the garden of No 84.
Therefore, there will be no undue overlooking of this garden. There will be no restriction on the
outlook from this property because the extension will be obscured by the Holm Oak
2.6
Garden Area
The existing house has a substantial curtilage and garden area. The development of this proposal will
still leave ample amenity space around the house.
2.7
-
Architectural Details
Detailing follows the principal building
Half-round tiles to ridge and hip
Projecting fascia and soffit with planted gutter
Joinery is recessed in openings with the use of stone’ sills under vertical sliding sash windows
Window size and proportion match the existing
-
Materials
The following materials are proposed to match those on the existing house
Walls are smooth painted render
Roof finish is concrete profiled tiles to match the existing
Joinery is white painted softwood
2.8
2.9
Trees
The existing Holm Oak is in close proximity to the proposed extension. However, both the Planning
Inspector and the Arboricultural report previously prepared concluded it was not undertreat, nor of
particular local amenity value, a situation confirmed by the Council still not having served a protection
order on it over the last seven years.
2.10
The Applicant still wishes to retain the Holm Oak and noting the Consultants comments still proposes
to remove the hard standing to improve the immediate rooting environment of the tree.
2.11
The proposed extension will have no impact on the trees that stand outside the site on the western
boundary. The site will still be visible from Villa Road but only glimpses of the extension would be
achievable from Tollgate Road
3
Impact
3.1
-
The proposal will:
not materially change the character and appearance of the area
it is in keeping with the character and appearance of the original building
it has no overbearing effect on the outlook of neighbouring properties
it will not lead to loss of natural daylight or sunlight to the adjoining properties
there is no undue overlooking of neighbouring properties
there is no unacceptable reduction in garden area
4
Conclusion
4.1
There are no demonstrable significant harmful conflicts with the intentions of the development plan
and relevant national policy having regard to all material planning considerations.
4.2
Also, it is in conformity with the guidance in the Council’s Householder’s Guide to the Residential
Extensions and the Essex Design Guide which are both supplementary planning guidance adopted by
the Council.
Appendices
Appendix 1:
1
David,
Email Correspondence
Sent: 04 November 2014 16:22
As discussed a sketch for discussion illustrating some new details to reduce the impact of the extension, to
make it subordinate to the existing.
I await your initial views so as to be able to develop further the amendments to meet your criteria.
Sorry the illustration is overlaid on the original drawing off your web page. It’s so long since the application
was made I had binned the original.
Stephen E
2
Steve,
On 06/11/2014 15:04, David Whybrow wrote:
I think this is a much better solution from the point of view of the front elevation with lower & subordinate
roof-line. To the rear, the best approach would be for the 2nd new bedroom, projecting above the living room,
to be omitted & for this to be a s/storey projection only. I assume a section of flat roof will be seen at the side
but don't think this will be publicly visible or visually jarring. If you agree to this change, there should be an
articulation break on side elevation between the 2 and s/storey elements
I consider this amendment would help address the Inspector's concern about overdevelopment or cramped
development.
Regards, David.
3
David,
Sent: 17 November 2014 12:49
I have spoken to the client and he is willing to omit the 2nd bedroom but would prefer to have a pitch roof
over the ss ground floor extension. He would like to build it as the attached.
I will phone tomorrow to discuss this and clarify your comment 'I assume a section of flat roof will be seen at
the side' which we might be miss reading as a statement of preference for a flat roof over the ss rear
extension.
Stephen
4
Steve,
On 18/11/2014 09:29, David Whybrow wrote:
Slight misunderstanding here! I certainly expected a pitched roof over s/st addition. The flat roof would be
exposed on the 2st (side) roof where it would originally have been hidden?
Regards, David.