1.
Site Description
1.1
The application property is a detached dwellinghouse lying in large grounds on the
eastern side of the A687 highway, Burton-in-Lonsdale. The property lies within
Development Limits, approximately 60 metres beyond the northern boundary of the
village’s Conservation Area.
1.2
The land in this vicinity falls sharply from west to east, leaving the highway elevated
above the application property. The application property makes use of the
topography by being two storeys tall to its western side and three storeys to the east.
1.3
The building is predominantly rendered and painted white, however, there is some
bare stone and dark tiled detailing to its southern, eastern and northern elevations.
Springhill (the neighbouring property to the south) and Waterside House (the
neighbouring property to the north) are both of similar but not identical scale and
appearance.
1.4
The site is enclosed to the west, the boundary with the county highway, by tall trees,
mainly evergreens, which, along with the topography, provide a near total screen for
the existing house from the west.
1.5
A public footpath runs from the highway access shared by Fairfield and Springhill
past the southern side of the latter property and down to the stream, from where it
climbs up across the field to the east. The northern boundary of the Burton-inLonsdale Conservation Area follows that footpath for part of its length before
diverging and heading south.
1.6
Despite the presence of mature trees to all sides, the application property and its two
nearest neighbours are prominent features in the landscape from the east.
2.
Proposal
2.1
The applicants seek planning permission for the extension of their dwelling. The roof
of the existing property is to be raised by 1 metre to allow the creation of an
additional floor of accommodation, which will be served by two Velux windows in the
roof’s southern (front) pitch and a box dormer window in its northern (rear) pitch. The
new roof pitches are to be at shallower angles than the existing roof.
2.2
The northern pitch of the new roof is to run through over an extension to the northern
side of the building. That extension is to project 5.4 metres from the building’s rear
elevation and will be flush to its western side, projecting 2.5 metres beyond its
eastern side elevation to form a mini-gable. Projecting from the eastern side of the
existing building at lower ground floor level will be a single storey home office, the flat
roof of which will form a deck that will link up with the deck area to the front of the
existing building at upper ground floor level.
2.3
The applicants propose to construct the extension from a prefabricated timber
system in order to achieve super-insulation standards and minimise the energy
needed to heat it. The timber framed system will also be light in weight, which is
necessary in this instance because the existing building has had to be heavily
underpinned and the load that the extensions will place onto the existing house and
the ground need to be minimised. The extensions are to comprise painted rendered
walls under concrete tiled roofs to match the existing building but some sections of
the walls are to be finished with stained larch and oak boarding to provide visual
interest in lieu of the existing dark tiled detailing that is to be removed.
3.
Planning History
3.1
P:I:SE:3309/A – Erection of a dwelling and garage, in O.S. field 257, Burton-inLonsdale, approved 08/08/1972.
3.2
15/2002/1873 – Extension to add 4 bedrooms, lounge, study, workshop, office and
cellar, Fairfield, Burton-in-Lonsdale, refused 09/04/2002. [Application sought
permission to add an extension at 90º to the existing building, across its eastern
elevation, with a mono-pitched roof. Refused permission on the grounds that the
scale and massing of the extension would visually dominate the original dwelling and
would adversely effect views into and out of the Conservation Area.]
4.
Planning Policy Background
4.1
Policies BE11, H20 and UTI9 and appendices F, G and I of the Local Plan.
5.
Parish/Town Council Comments
5.1
Burton-in-Lonsdale Parish Council: “1) Design is more in keeping with the existing
character of the house [than the previous scheme]. 2) Concern being expressed
regarding current sewage/drainage arrangements being able to cope with the
projected/potential change of use, as in first application. 3) Concern being expressed
regarding car parking provision, as in first application. 4) The east elevation, as
viewed from the Ingleton Road (A687) approach is still out of keeping with the
expectation of approach to a conservation area, a point of objection to the last
application” (01/07/2002).
6.
Consultations
6.1
NYCC Area Traffic Officer: Does not wish to impose restrictions on the grant of
permission (28/06/2002).
7.
Representations
7.1
Letter of objection received from the occupier of 5 The Croft: “I have already
expressed my opinion with regard to considerable extensions to the property
opposite my bungalow and known as Fairfield. The applicant appears to have slightly
reduced his plans, but I still maintain that a huge complex at the end of a very
attractive village High Street would be detrimental to the appearance of this end of
the village. The architecture of 18th and 19th Century dwelling houses – from small to
moderate size – create a charming village High Street. There is plenty of room in
Yorkshire for modern, extensive “additions and improvements” – but NIMBY please!
p.s. his 30-40 foot trees block much of our view” (10/06/2002).
8.
Summary of Principal Planning Issues
8.1
The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the building/street
scene, landscape, settlement and neighbouring Conservation Area.
8.2
The effect of the development on the amenities of neighbouring residents, on the
dwelling’s off-street parking capacity and on highway safety.
9.
Analysis
9.1
The adopted Local Plan’s Strategy Statement requires all development to have
regard to the need for sustainable development and identifies, among other things,
the need to conserve energy and resources while protecting the Plan area’s essential
character, including buildings and areas of important townscape, architectural and
historic interest.
9.2
The Local Plan’s General Development Principles require all developments to be
designed to minimise heat loss and maximise energy conservation while, among
other things, using materials appropriate to the locality and respecting the density,
scale, height, proportions, massing and materials of surrounding buildings.
9.3
Policy UTI9 of the Local Plan supports proposals designed to minimise energy loss
from new or existing buildings provided that they do not have adverse impacts on the
character of such buildings or on the character of settlements or landscapes.
9.4
Policy BE11 of the Local Plan only supports an application for development in or
adjoining a Conservation Area if it will make a positive contribution to its character or
will not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area. The application
property lies approximately 60 metres to the north of the Burton-in-Lonsdale
Conservation Area’s northern boundary but the southernmost extreme of the
property’s curtilage and its shared highway access lie approximately 10 metres from
that boundary. The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the
neighbouring Conservation Area is therefore a material consideration in this case.
9.5
Policy H20 of the Local Plan supports proposals for extensions to existing dwellings
provided that the proposed scale, proportions, design and materials will respect the
original property and will not adversely effect the street scene. In addition, it states
that such proposals should not unacceptably effect the privacy or amenity currently
enjoyed by neighbouring residents or create or increase a shortfall in the property’s
off-street parking capacity.
9.6
Appendix F of the Local Plan supplements policy H20 by giving design guidance for
householder extensions. It recommends that extensions should, in most cases,
attempt to match the design, proportions, materials, roof form and window/door
styling of the building to be extended and sets out recommended space separations
to avoid unacceptable overshadowing, overlooking and overbearing of neighbouring
residents.
9.7
While the level of additional accommodation to be provided is similar, the currently
proposed extension differs from the recently refused scheme in that is to continue the
form of the existing building – as opposed to contrasting with it. The massing of the
proposed extension has been reduced by dividing it up (with some in an increased
roof space, some on the eastern elevation and the majority on the northern elevation)
– thereby avoiding the dominating effect that the previous scheme would have had
on the original property.
9.8
The extension will give the application property large side elevations but its western
side will be screened from view by the existing topography and trees and the
massing of its eastern side will be broken up by the mini-gable that will project from it.
The extension to the building’s northern side will remain subordinate in height to the
main body of the building and, since Fairfield is a detached property within large
grounds, the raising of its roof by 1 metre will not be detrimental to its character.
9.9
The extension’s design and finish materials are to be carried across from the existing
building but the proposed sections of larch and oak boarding will be novel features,
which will serve the same purpose as the existing dark tiled detailing in breaking up
the mass of its elevations. The extension’s windows will reflect the form of the
property’s openings and the dormer window and Velux rooflights will not be of scales
that would detract from the character of the building. As such, the proposal’s scale,
proportions, design and materials will respect the original property, in accordance
with the first criterion of policy H20 and the second and third criteria of policy BE11.
9.10
The Parish Council stated that they consider the extension, when viewed from the
A687 to the north east, to be “out of keeping with the expectation of approach to a
conservation area”. In this regard, the fourth criterion of policy BE11 states that
developments in or adjoining Conservation Areas should not adversely affect the
roofscape, skyline, setting or views into or out of a Conservation Area. Though
partially obscured from view by mature trees, the application property, Springhill and,
to a lesser extent, Waterside House, already form part of the skyline and view into
the Conservation Area from that direction. Since the extension will respect the
original building, it is considered that no adverse affect will be caused to the
roofscape, skyline or setting of the Conservation Area or to views into or out of the
Conservation Area.
9.11
By minimising the energy required to heat the building and by not adversely affecting
the character of the application property, neighbouring buildings or the
townscape/wider settlement, the proposal also accords with policy UTI9 and the
Strategy Statement and General Design Principles of the Local Plan.
9.12
Turning to the remaining criteria of policy H20, the proposed development will not
unacceptably detract from the privacy or amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring
residents. The space separations to all sides will be sufficient to maintain privacy by
distance and to prevent the extension from overshadowing or overbearing
neighbouring dwellings, in accordance with the recommended standards of appendix
F. The proposal therefore accords with the second criterion of policy H20.
9.13
With regard to the Parish Council’s concerns over the car parking provision, there will
be sufficient off-street parking available within the property’s curtilage after the
extension is built to meet the level of provision required by appendix I of the Local
Plan. The Area Traffic Officer has no objection to the proposal and, since the
property will remain a single dwelling, no detriment will be caused to highway safety.
As such, the proposal accords with the third criterion of policy H20 and with the sixth
criterion of policy BE11.
9.14
The Parish Council’s comment regarding a “projected/potential” change of use of the
building is not a material consideration in the determination of this application
because the application does not involve a change of the use of the building. If the
applicants wish at a later date to make a material change to the use of the building
then they will have to make a further application for planning permission and the
effects of such a proposal on highway safety and neighbouring amenity will be
considered at that time.
9.15
The sewage and drainage arrangements for a development of this scale are matters
for consideration under a Building Regulations application.
9.16
The comment of the neighbouring resident concerning the loss of a private view is
not a material planning consideration.
10.
Recommendation
10.1
Recommend that planning permission be GRANTED.
11.
Summary of Conditions
11.1
Standard time limit.
11.2
Prior approval of stain colour for windows and external wood boarding.
11.3
Proposed railings to match existing.