Agenda Item No 4
Planning and Development
Board
14 April 2008
Planning Applications
Report of the
Assistant Director (Planning and Development)
1
Subject
1.1
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – applications presented for
determination.
2
Purpose of Report
2.1
This report presents for the Board decision, a number of planning, listed
building, advertisement, proposals, together with proposals for the works to,
or the felling of trees covered by a Preservation Order and other
miscellaneous items.
2.2
Minerals and Waste applications are determined by the County Council.
Developments by Government Bodies and Statutory Undertakers are also
determined by others. The recommendations in these cases are consultation
responses to those bodies.
2.3
The proposals presented for decision are set out in the index at the front of
the attached report.
2.4
Significant Applications are presented first, followed in succession by General
Development Applications; the Council’s own development proposals; and
finally Minerals and Waste Disposal Applications. .
3
Implications
3.1
Should there be any implications in respect of:
Finance; Crime and Disorder; Sustainability; Human Rights Act; or other
relevant legislation, associated with a particular application then that issue will
be covered either in the body of the report, or if raised at the meeting, in
discussion.
4
Site Visits
4.1
Members are encouraged to view sites in advance of the Board Meeting.
Most can be seen from public land. They should however not enter private
land. If they would like to see the plans whilst on site, then they should
always contact the Case Officer who will accompany them. Formal site visits
can only be agreed by the Board and reasons for the request for such a visit
need to be given.
4/1
4.2
Members are reminded of the “Planning Protocol for Members and Officers
dealing with Planning Matters”, in respect of Site Visits, whether they see a
site alone, or as part of a Board visit.
5
Availability
5.1
The report is made available to press and public at least five working days
before the meeting is held in accordance with statutory requirements. It is
also possible to view the papers on the Council’s web site
www.northwarks.gov.uk
5.2
The next meeting at which planning applications will be considered following
this meeting, is due to be held on Monday 19 May 2008 at 6.30pm in the
Council Chamber at the Council House.
4/2
Planning Applications – Index
Item
No
Application
No
Page
No
Description
General / Significant
1
PAP/2008/0068
4
Astley Castle Castle Drive Astley Nr Nuneaton
The construction of a new 8 person house within the
remains of an existing historic structure, and the
partial demolition of largely unsound existing fabric to
enable this construction
General
2
PAP/2008/0071
14
88 Spring Hill, Arley
Retrospective application for replacement bay to
front living room and extended to first floor bedroom
to replace existing flat bedroom window and
retention of conservatory.
General
4/3
General Development Applications
(1)
Application No PAP/2008/0068 & 0069
Astley Castle Castle Drive Astley Nr Nuneaton
The construction of a new 8 person house within the remains of an existing
historic structure, and the partial demolition of largely unsound existing fabric
to enable this construction, for C/O Alistair Dick - Cleland The Landmark Trust
Introduction
These applications are reported to Board at the Assistant Director’s discretion given
the significance of the building, and it’s history.
The Site
The Castle stands on the northern edge of the small hamlet of Astley, beyond Castle
Drive. It is a little divorced from the settlement, and is surrounded by a former moat,
and sits in former open parkland, on a small rise above a nearby lake. The hamlet to
the south comprises a small collection of residential property, St Mary’s Church, a
former School, and farm buildings. The settlement is an Estate village within the
Arbury Estate,
The Castle itself is ruined, and has progressively deteriorated over the last ten years.
The relationship between the Castle and the surrounding landscape is of
considerable historic, visual and archaeological importance. The moat island, on
which the Castle stands, is medieval as is the Church to the southwest. Around the
moat are traces of medieval field systems, earlier settlements, and to the west, a
castle garden dating at least from the 18th Century. The moat island is surrounded
by the substantial remains of a medieval curtain wall, and there are remains of the
medieval gatehouse still present. The surviving castle/house is not particularly large,
and it is evident that a much greater proportion of the moat island was covered in
buildings.
The application is accompanied by a structural survey and an historical analysis.
The former concludes that the remaining structure is in a “precarious” state, and if left
unattended would probably be beyond saving in five years time. In view of this the
report recommends removal of walls, not required to be retained as part of the
proposals, down to height of 1 to 2 metres, thus retaining the form and outline. A
permanent roof framing then needs to be introduced within the main area, and apart
from providing roofing, this would act also to stabilise the walls. The new
accommodation could then fill the void under the roof.
The historical analysis concludes that the castle forms the focal point of a broader
historic landscape that has medieval origins. It has been through numerous changes
since then, and still currently displays a variety of these historic components. The
Castle has been associated with important historic figures – including Lady Jane
Grey. It was last lived in during the 1970’s, but was badly damaged by fire in 1978,
since when it has continued to deteriorate. In short, there is no singular Astley Castle,
rather a heterogeneous set of structures dating from different times, which have
4/4
weathered together to give the present appearance. The fabric that survived the fire,
and the subsequent thirty years of neglect, now effectively leaves just a masonry
shell.
The Proposals
It is proposed to construct a new house within this shell. This is seen to be a 21st
Century addition to the long line of extensions, alterations and insertions undergone
by the Castle since medieval times. The design is thus contemporary, continuing this
line of change.
The existing building is large, but it is not proposed to utilize this whole structure.
However it is necessary to stabilise and to provide enabling works, and thus provide
a safe environment for the final living space. Hence much of the unsound structure
will be removed down to a sound basis – both outside and inside of the new
accommodation. A concrete frame would then be inserted at roof level, buttressing
and tying together the external walls of the earlier ranges. This will protect the largest
possible amount of surviving historic fabric. The frame would then effectively provide
the extent of the new living accommodation. Because of the scale of the spans
involved, a timber roof structure/frame is not structurally possible – hence the use of
concrete. However the application of stone aggregate will mitigate against the stark
colour of the concrete.
The new living space will in fact inhabit the oldest part of the Castle, and an inverted
layout is proposed with the sleeping areas on the lower levels. This enables the living
space to occupy the larger voids within the existing shell, following removal or
reduction of many of the internal walls. The sections that are not covered by the new
frame/roof will become open courtyards, but retain some walls and window openings,
thus appearing as external rooms.
The castle would be entered through the remains of the 17th Century porch on the
front elevation. There will then be two external courts – one a paved entrance court
and the second as a garden court. The house will occupy the shell of the original
medieval manor and be laid out as described above. The first floor living
accommodation will, through the removal of some internal walls, open out to form a
large open space, reflecting the original medieval open hall.
Capping and edging of existing masonry will be carried out in new brick, as will new
walls. Shallow concrete precast lintols will be used with the new roof structure being
concrete with timber joists. New joinery will be in oak.
All car parking would be confined to the stables block on the left hand side of the
access drive some distance away from the Castle and its moat.
Planning History
The Castle was last used as living accommodation and as a restaurant in the mid
1970’s. Following the fire in 1978 there has been no further use, as the building was
effectively “gutted” as a consequence.
Proposals did come forward to convert the Castle to Holiday accommodation during
the 1980’s but these were accompanied by a significant amount of enabling
development in the form of a new residential estate on open land within the hamlet.
This was refused because of the scale of that new development. A similar, far more
sensitive, approach was taken a few years ago, with a reduced amount of new
4/5
enabling accommodation and a more “scattered” approach as to its location
throughout the hamlet. However it was again refused because it was considered that
the enabling development was of such a scale as to have substantive adverse
impacts on the Green Belt, and to the historic, architectural and visual appearance of
the hamlet as a whole. Since then the Castle has continued to deteriorate with further
masonry collapse.
The current scheme is the subject of grant applications to English Heritage and to the
Heritage Lottery Fund.
Development Plan
North Warwickshire Local Plan 2006 – Core Policies 2, 3, 4, 11 and Policies ENV2,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, HSG2 and 3, ECON9 and 10
Other Material Planning Considerations
Government Advice in PPG2 and PPG 15
English Heritage’s Buildings at Risk Register
Consultations
English Heritage – Welcomes the scheme and recommends support subject to
appropriate conditions. The proposals will arrest further deterioration of a building
that it is now not possible to reconstruct meaningfully. They provide a future use that
is compatible with the status of the building and that will afford public access.
Council’s Heritage Officer – This is probably the last chance to save substantial parts
of the remaining ruined structure. It is fortunate that the Trust have returned to the
site again, with a view to creating specialist tourist living accommodation. The
application is supported by exemplary analysis and recording of the historic and
architectural aspects of the building. This then informs the proposals that involve
selective demolition with retention and consolidation of mostly medieval and 16th/17th
Century fabric. The proposed living accommodation is appropriate and innovative,
and has resulted from a competition run by the Trust. The use of a slender concrete
internal frame to brace the structure and thereby avoid the need for internal support
is ingenious. No objection subject to conditions.
Warwickshire County Council as Highway Authority – No objection
Warwickshire Museum – Concerned that there is no detail about the impact of the
proposals on the archaeology of the area, given that this is a Scheduled Ancient
Monument. It is appropriate that survey work is undertaken, and the proposals
designed so to mitigate all adverse impacts. This should be done before
determination.
Ancient Monuments Society – Response awaited. This will be provided at the
Meeting.
Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to conditions
Warwickshire Wildlife Trust – No objection subject to appropriate surveys and
mitigation measures in respect of bats and nesting birds.
4/6
Economic Development Manager – Supports the proposals, as they are the last
opportunity to bring the site back to life with a proposal that will add a unique addition
to the current stock of tourist accommodation in the Borough. This will be of potential
national interest. It too could link to the work being done on the North Arden Heritage
Trail, by adding a diversion to come close to the Castle.
Representations
Astley Parish Council – Supports the proposals as they will ensure the future of the
historic building; reduce the opportunity for vandalism and theft, encourage tourism
and visitors, provide employment, act as a stimulus for archaeological exploration of
the setting and provide a means to maintain the building.
Atherstone Civic Society – Welcomes this “last ditch” attempt to retrieve something
from the present situation. The reports are detailed and informative. The Trust is to
be congratulated on an innovative and non-invasive approach, and provides a tourist
attraction of potentially national significance. There are clearly some regrets such as
the loss of old timbers, and the loss of some of the historic features. Conditions will
be needed to ensure proper and thorough attention to detail and to archaeological
recording. There is a request that the whole area should be considered for
designation as a Conservation Area.
Observations
This is a Grade 2 star Listed Building, which is on English Heritage’s Buildings at
Risk Register. It is also within an extensive Scheduled Ancient Monument Site, within
close proximity to a Grade 1 Listed Church, and to other Listed Buildings within the
hamlet. The area has strong national historic connections. Astley is a largely
untouched Estate village belonging to the Arbury Estate based at Arbury Hall in
Nuneaton. The whole area is within the Green Belt.
This building, its immediate setting and the wider locality are very significant
historically, archaeologically and visually from a building and landscape point of view,
both to the Borough and in a national context. As a consequence there are strong
considerations here that must be weighed against the restraint policies applicable
through Green Belt (Policy ENV2) and Development Plan policy (Core Policy 2 and
Policy HSG3). Astley has no development boundary, and thus new residential
development is not supported in the hamlet. On the other hand, Green Belt policy
indicates that the reuse of existing rural buildings might not be inappropriate in such
a location. This is subject to a number of criteria, and these in general are met with
the current proposal – no greater impact on openness than the existing; no extension
of re-used buildings, or the introduction of residential attributes, and that the overall
building is worthy of retention. The one outstanding criterion that remains of issue
here is whether the building itself is of a permanent or substantial construction,
capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction. Policy ECON 9 also
sets out pre-conditions in respect of proposals for the reuse of rural buildings. In this
case the applicable one is whether or not the proposals would be the “only means of
preventing the loss or deterioration of a Listed Building”. Given the evidence from
English Heritage and the Council’s Conservation Officer, together with the recent
history of neglect and refusals of past schemes, it is considered that in principle, this
does represent the last opportunity to retain this Listed structure. Given this
conclusion, the final criterion of PPG2 advice above is also satisfied. In general terms
therefore it is considered that the current proposals are not inappropriate
development within the Green Belt. Policy ECON 9 however continues by requiring a
sequential test if the principle of reuse is first established. The preference under that
4/7
test is for a use that has an economic objective. The current proposal would fit a
number of the suggested uses identified under this preference as set out in the Policy
– facilitating access to the countryside; supporting local services and supporting the
economic regeneration of the area. As a consequence it is considered that the
proposed use meets the development objectives of Development Plan policy.
The cultural, historic and architectural evidence submitted, and as a consequence of
consultation responses, clearly suggests that the proposals are worthy of support
and would thus accord with Government advice and Development Plan policy on
historic and cultural matters. The proposals have the benefits of introducing a
compatible use within a Listed Structure in an exceptionally innovative and noninvasive way, such that much of the historic fabric is not only retained, but stabilised
as well. As such, given the state of the existing ruin and its historic significance, there
is overriding weight to support the proposal from a cultural heritage point of view.
The addition of this unit to the tourist accommodation within the Borough, and the
associated historic connections and links can only be of wider benefit to the Borough
in the longer term.
The actual design of the proposals has full support from consultees and has not
drawn adverse criticism from any quarter. It can be fully supported.
The position of the Museum, and indeed probably the Ancient Monuments Society is
understood. The required survey work is essential. However it will take some time to
prepare, and given that it is recognised by all parties that these proposals are likely to
be the last opportunity to “recover” the Castle and to find an appropriate use, it is
considered that the use of conditions are appropriate in this case. It is important that
the applicant acquires a planning permission in order to further the bids for Grant aid,
and given the overriding significance of the site and the appropriateness of the
proposals, it is considered that in this case, the need to achieve a permission
outweighs the need to undertake a full preliminary archaeological investigation.
Members are familiar with pre-commencement conditions and these are included
within the recommendation, Moreover the Museum’s position is safeguarded, as the
applicant also has to gain Ancient Monument Consent from English Heritage prior to
implementing any planning permission. This will require that survey to be undertaken.
As a consequence it is concluded that the proposals are worthy of support in
principle and in detail.
Recommendation
Planning Application : 2008/0068
That planning permission be Granted subject to the following conditions:
1)
Standard Three Year condition
2)
No development whatsoever shall commence on site until such time
as a bat survey has been undertaken, and the conclusions arising
from that work have been submitted in writing to the Local Planning
Authority. The conclusions shall include any recommended mitigation
measures. Commencement of work shall only be undertaken following
approval in writing of the Authority of such measures as appropriate to
4/8
the conclusions of the survey, and such approved measures shall then
be incorporated into the work as necessary.
Reason: In the interests of safeguarding and enhancing the nature
conservation value of the site
3)
No work whatsoever shall commence on site until such time as
detailed drawings of the means of disposal of foul and surface water,
together with the provision of all other utility infrastructure, have first
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Only the approved detail shall then be implemented.
Reason: In view of the status of the site as a Scheduled Ancient
Monument and thus in the interests of safeguarding the archaeological
importance of the site.
4)
No work whatsoever shall commence on site until such time as full
details of the extent of the consolidation proposed and the repair of
existing masonry and the method of capping and weathering of the
walls have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall then be
implemented.
Reason: In order to protect the architectural and historic significance
of the building
5)
No work whatsoever shall commence on site until such time as full
details of the following have first been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority:
 the concrete roof/wall support frame
 all external joinery
 the balcony railings
 the lift and stairs
 all new glazing
 all new materials including mortar samples for repair and new
construction
 any new entrance gates
 all new surfacing materials
Only the approved details shall then be implemented.
Reason: In order to protect the architectural and historic significance
of the building.
6)
No work whatsoever shall commence on site until such time as a full
schedule and method statement of the measures and approach to be
taken to site clearance has first been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. If demolition work is required
to be more extensive as a consequence of clearance, then only that
additional demolition first agreed by the Local Planning Authority shall
be undertaken.
Reason: In order to protect the architectural and historic significance
of the building.
4/9
7)
No work shall commence on site until such time as a Brief has first
been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority for an
Archaeological investigation of the site together with the recording of
the findings of the investigation. The investigation, recording and
eventual publicity to be given to that investigation shall be undertaken
fully in accordance with the agreed Brief.
Reason: In the interests of the significance of the site as a Scheduled
Ancient Monument and thus in order to protect that significance.
8)
No work shall commence on site until such time as details have been
submitted to show how the 17th Century timbers that are to be
removed, are to be dismantled, stored and used in the future.
Reason: In view of the historic significance of these timbers.
9)
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended, no
development within Parts 1, 2 and 40 of Schedule 2, shall be
implemented without the written agreement of the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: In view of the architectural and historic significance of the
site, and to reduce the impact of the development on the openness of
the Green Belt.
10)
All car parking associated with the use hereby approved shall be
restricted to the area identified on plan AST 101D received by the
Local Planning Authority on 20 February 2008.
Reason: as above, and so as to reduce the impact of the development
on the openness of the Green Belt.
Planning Application : 2008/0069
That Listed Building Consent be Granted subject to the conditions referred to
above.
Policies
As above
4/10
Reasoned Justification
It is not considered that the proposals represent inappropriate development within the
Green Belt, in view of the criteria set out in PPG2, and the evidence submitted by
English Heritage in supporting the scope and content of the proposed demolition
works. Moreover it is considered that very special circumstances do exist here given
the fact that the building is a Grade 2 star listed, on the at Risk Register, of national
historic interest, is in a very precarious physical state and that the proposed use is
compatible with the structure. The proposals also meet the precondition set out in the
Local Plan in respect of the reuse of rural buildings. There will be tourism and local
economic benefits. There are no adverse impacts arising from highway or drainage
considerations.
4/11
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Local Government Act 1972 Section 100D, as substituted by the Local Government
Act, 2000 Section 97
Planning Application No: PAP/2008/0068
Background
Paper No
Author
1
The Applicant or Applicants
Agent
English Heritage
Conservation Officer
Economic Development
Officer
Astley Parish council
Atherstone Civic Society
Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
Severn Trent Water
Agents
Warwickshire County
Council
Warwickshire Museum
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Nature of Background
Paper
Date
Planning Application Forms
and Plans
Consultation
Consultation
Consultation
4/2/08
Consultation
Consultation
Consultation
Consultation
E-mail
Consultation
12/3/08
12/3/08
6/3/08
3/3/08
18/3/08
20/3/08
Consultation
28/3/07
10/2/08
22/2/08
7/3/08
Note:
This list of background papers excludes published documents which may be referred to in the
report, such as The Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Notes.
A background paper will include any item which the Planning Officer has relied upon in
preparing the report and formulating his recommendation. This may include correspondence, reports
and documents such as Environmental Impact Assessments or Traffic Impact Assessments.
4/12
4/13
()
Application No PAP/2008/0071
88 Spring Hill Arley
Retrospective application for replacement bay to front living room and
extended to first floor bedroom to replace existing flat bedroom window and
retention of conservatory,for Mr Stuart Gray
Introduction
This application was reported to the March Board meeting, but determination was
deferred in order that the Board could visit the site. This has now been undertaken,
and the matter is referred back for a decision. For convenience, the previous report
is attached as Appendix A.
Recommendation:
As set out in Appendix A.
4/14
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Local Government Act 1972 Section 100D, as substituted by the Local Government
Act, 2000 Section 97
Planning Application No: PAP/2008/0071
Background
Paper No
Author
Nature of Background
Paper
1
Assistant Director (Planning
and Development)
Letters
Date
18/3/08
2
Note:
This list of background papers excludes published documents which may be referred to in the
report, such as The Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Notes.
A background paper will include any item which the Planning Officer has relied upon in
preparing the report and formulating his recommendation. This may include correspondence, reports
and documents such as Environmental Impact Assessments or Traffic Impact Assessments.
4/15
4/16
Appendix A
General Development Applications
()
Application No PAP/2008/0071
88 Spring Hill, Arley
Retrospective application for replacement bay to front living room and
extended to first floor bedroom to replace existing flat bedroom window and
retention of conservatory.
For Mr Stuart Gray
Introduction: The application is reported to Board for determination because the
property is occupied by the applicant and a senior member of staff at North
Warwickshire Borough Council and also because of the receipt of representations.
The Site: A semi detached property situated on the north side of Spring Hill, at a
position opposite the Spring Hill Medical Centre and the junction with Lamp Lane.
The Proposal: To retain a conservatory, erected approximately three years ago and
to erect a two storey high bay window on the front elevation in a position in front of
the ground floor living room window and the first floor bedroom.
The conservatory is constructed to the side and rear of the dwelling, adjoining a
kitchen extension that was constructed shortly before the erection of the
conservatory. It measures 4.7 metres by 2.4 metres deep and has a monopitch roof,
which measures 2.6 metres high at its highest point. It is constructed from white
UPVC.
The existing property contains a ground floor half-hexagonal shaped bay window on
the front elevation. It is proposed to construct a new bay window here that would
have a rectangular form, measuring 1.4 metres deep, 2.9 metres wide and 5.4
metres high (to the same height as the eaves of the main roof of the house). The
bay window has been partly constructed, however, upon being advised that planning
permission is required for the development, work has ceased pending the outcome of
this application. The use of obscured glazing is proposed in the side elevations of
the bay window.
Background: Planning permission was granted in March 2004 for a single storey
side and rear extension, which was later amended to allow its construction in two
separate phases. However, this consent was not implemented and instead the
applicant elected to build a rear kitchen extension only. The dimensions of the rear
kitchen extension were such that it was permitted development and did not require
the submission of a planning application. Following the erection of the kitchen
extension a conservatory was added to the side of it. This conservatory requires
planning permission and none was sought at the time. Permission is therefore being
sought retrospectively in this application.
The 2004 planning permission included a proposal to alter the existing ground floor
bay window from a half-hexagonal shape to a rectangular shape by squaring off the
corners. The new bay window that has been partly constructed is also rectangular in
form but extends forward of the front of the former bay window by an additional 0.6
metres and will also extend up to form a bay in front of a first floor bedroom window.
4/17
Development Plan: Relevant Policies:
North Warwickshire Local Plan 2006:
ENV2 – Green Belt
ENV11 – Neighbour Amenities
ENV13 – Building Design
Other Relevant Material Considerations:
Government Advice: Planning Policy Guidance Note Number 2 - Green Belts
Supplementary Planning Guidance: A Guide for the Design of Householder
Developments, September 2003
Representations:
Three letters have been received.
One writer indicates no objection to the proposal.
Two letters of objection have been received as follows:
 The windows in the bay would result in a loss of privacy, with direct views into
rooms within each of the two adjacent houses (a dining room and bedroom to
86 Spring Hill and a bedroom and reception room to 90 Spring Hill).
 Concern is expressed that the applicant is seeking permission retrospectively.
 The bay window will not be in keeping with other properties, particularly, the
other half of this semi detached property.
Observations:
The property lies within the Green Belt. Extensions to existing residential properties
will not be inappropriate providing that they are not disproportionate additions to the
original dwelling. The figure of 30% of the volume of the original house is used as a
guide to determine what is likely to be a disproportionate addition. In this instance
the kitchen, conservatory and bay window additions would cumulatively be less than
30% of the size of the original dwelling. The conservatory and bay window
extensions can therefore be supported in principle.
In the above circumstances it is necessary to assess whether the proposed works
would result in any harm to amenity and whether they are of an acceptable design.
An existing wooden fence, approximately 2 metres high, divides the application site
from the neighbouring property at 90 Spring Hill. With this fence in place the
retention of the conservatory will not result in any harm to the amenity of the
occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling. The structure is light weight and fully glazed.
It does not result in any substantial detriment to the character or appearance of the
dwelling and the retention of the conservatory may be supported.
The objectors express concerns that the bay window will result in loss of privacy and
poor design. The juxta position of neighbouring properties and the proposed use of
obscured glazing in the side elevations of the bay window will ensure that no undue
loss of privacy or overlooking will result from the proposed development. Though the
proposed two storey bay window will add a design element to the front of this
4/18
property which would differ from the design of the adjoining semi detached property,
it is a small addition that will not substantially alter its character or scale. The design
repeats elements of the main dwelling in cills and string courses and is considered to
be acceptable. It is also of note that a previous consent has authorised an alteration
to the shape of the ground floor element of the bay. The completion of the bay
window may be supported.
Recommendation:
That planning permission be Granted subject to the following conditions:
1.
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not
later than the expiration of three years from the date of this
permission.
REASON
To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004, and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented
planning permissions.
2.
The development hereby approved shall not be carried out otherwise
than in accordance with the plan numbered 3042-12c received by the
Local Planning Authority on 19 February 2008 and the plan numbered
3042-11b received by the Local Planning Authority on 14 February
2008.
REASON
To ensure that the development is carried out strictly in accordance
with the approved plans.
3.
All windows on the side elevations of the approved bay window
extension shall be glazed with obscured glass and shall be
permanently maintained in that condition.
REASON
To protect the privacy of the adjoining property and to prevent
overlooking.
4.
The new works shall be carried out with bricks to match the existing
building.
REASON
In the interests of the amenities of the area and the building
concerned.
5.
The existing fence, or a replacement wall or fence measuring 2 metres
high, shall be maintained along the boundary between the application
site and the neighbouring property at 90 Spring Hill, Arley at all times.
4/19
REASON
To protect the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.
Notes
The Development Plan policies which are relevant to this Decision are as follows:
North Warwickshire Local Plan 2006 : ENV2, ENV11 and ENV13
Justification
The proposed development complies with the requirements of the above
development plan policy. The proposed extensions will not result in significant loss
of amenity to occupiers of neighbouring property and are of an acceptable design.
4/20
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Local Government Act 1972 Section 100D, as substituted by the Local Government
Act, 2000 Section 97
Planning Application No: PAP/2008/0071
Background
Paper No
Author
1
The Applicant or Applicants
Agent
P Webster
Mr & Mrs J Ensor
The Applicants Agent
M I & F T Hayward
2
3
4
5
Nature of Background
Paper
Planning Application Forms
and Plans
Representation
Representation
Amended Plans
Representation
Date
4 2 08
31 1 08
13 2 08
19 2 08
26 2 08
Note: This list of background papers excludes published documents which may be
referred to in the report, such as The Development Plan and Planning Policy
Guidance Notes.
A background paper will include any item which the Planning Officer has relied upon in preparing
the report and formulating his recommendation. This may include correspondence, reports and
documents such as Environmental Impact Assessments or Traffic Impact Assessments.
4/21
4/22