Case Officer:
S Scarano
Site:
50 Crowthers Hill, Dartmouth, Devon, TQ6 9QX
Application No:
15/1258/02/F
Date Received:
3rd July 2002
Agent:
Brian Walker Adelaide Exeter Road IVYBRIDGE Devon PL21
0BD
Applicant:
Mr P Harrison
Development:
Erection of rear extension and alterations
AD
D RO
FOR
50
BM
H
SOU T
19
17.12m
29
60
10
15
17.4m
BM 25.95m
12
14.0m
39
47
6
51a
4
3
37
18
42
LB
1
50
22
45.7 m
54
26
52
BM
30
48.38m
32
34
55.2m
2
26.8m
28
49
5
32
34
56
8
'S
ER
10
TH
25
wood
OW
CR
28
21
L
HIL
20
tts
Co
6
e
4
17
Spindle
urn
lbo
Me
39
BM 57.88m
BM 31.05m
42
40
38
El Sub Sta
44
ABOV
62.5m
OWN
E T
d
Scale 1:1250
For internal reference only – no further copies to be made
Cttee 04.09.02
DC0901MW
HILL
+
ES
BON
JAW
This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the
permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her
Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised
reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution
or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council. LA 079391. 2002
50
48
4
<
Policies
Within Conservation Area
Development Boundary
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Policy Area 1
Consultations
Devon County Council – County Highways Authority
No objection
South West Water
No objection
Environment Agency
No objection
Environmental Health Section
No objection
Town
Dartmouth Town Council make the following observations:Object on the grounds of being unneighbourly and overdevelopment.
One letter of support and one letter of objection are included in the Members’ Bundle of
Letters
The letter of support is from the adjoining neighbour and states that the rear extension is
acceptable to him.
The letter of objection states that:



The proposal represents a significant increase to the volume of the house and
protrudes beyond the existing rear building line;
The proposal is out of keeping with other properties in the area and will detract from
the Conservation Area;
The proposed dormer roof in the rear extension will overshadow rear gardens and
restrict outlook;
The proposal will set an undesirable precedent for similar development.
Case Officer Report
The Application Site and Proposal
The application premises has an irregular shape because of the terraced garden to the
rear. The house is three storey to the front and four storey to the rear and is one in a
terrace of ten buildings.
The main rear wall of the dwelling is protruded by an existing workshop at lower ground
floor level and a kitchen at ground floor, with stairs leading down to the rear garden. The
kitchen and workshop measure 3.1m wide by 3m long and is 5.5m high.
Cttee 04.09.02
DC0901MW
Planning permission is sought for a rear extension at lower ground and ground floor
level, involving demolition of the existing workshop and kitchen and their rebuilding to a
larger footprint. The extension will measure between 3.6m and 4.5m wide and is 5.5m
long. The proposal also involves digging under the lower ground floor level to a height of
1.2m. The actual height of the extension will be 4.7m to the eaves, with a mono-pitch roof
above measuring 2.8m high. The extension will be used as a garden and dining room and
will have a sloping pitched roof, with a dormer window and recessed French balcony.
The proposal also includes slate hanging to the front elevation at first and second floor
levels and alterations to windows on both the front and rear elevations. The new windows
and slate hanging have recently been installed on the building and therefore this part of
the application is retrospective. However, the alterations to the windows would fall within
the parameters of “permitted development” and therefore would not require planning
permission.
Site History
Planning application (Ref: 15/0543/02/F) was withdrawn in May 2002 on the advice of
Council officers. This proposal was for a rebuild of the existing kitchen and workshop at
ground and lower ground floors, to the same footprint, that is, measuring 3.1m by 3m.
However, there was also proposed a balcony above the ground floor flat roof, which
brought the extension to total height of 6.7m. The proposal was deemed to be
unacceptable because the balcony would have an adverse impact on the Conservation
Area at that high level and would also adversely impact on neighbouring amenity.
Analysis
The principle of slate hanging the front elevation is acceptable in conservation terms, as
this is a traditional finish to properties in Dartmouth. Although this work has already been
done, at the owner’s risk, a condition requiring details of the slate to be submitted for
approval is still recommended. This is because the front of the building is covered with
scaffolding and the type, colour and size of the slate has not yet been agreed by the
Council’s conservation officer.
The rear of the premises is not readily visible from public views in the Conservation Area
or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Given this and because the extension is contained
at lower ground and ground floor levels, the proposal is not deemed to have an adverse
impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or the natural beauty of
the AONB.
Policy DP 5 states that development which would significantly alter the density of
buildings, damage the landscape and character of, or increase the number of vehicles in
the Policy Area will not be permitted. Although the size of the dwelling will be increased,
the density is not being significantly altered and therefore the proposal is not contrary to
this policy.
Objections have been raised regarding the impact on amenity, especially the loss of
outlook and light. The extension will be 2.5m longer than the existing building. In order to
keep this additional bulk down, the roof of the extension has been steeply pitched and a
dormer window added.
Cttee 04.09.02
DC0901MW
Although it is acknowledged that the extension will add to the bulk of the building, given
its position at lower ground and ground floor levels, it is not considered to materially
worsen the existing situation with regard to outlook and light to an extent which warrants
refusing the application on these grounds.
It is accepted that granting permission for the proposed extension could set a precedent.
However, each house is different and each application is considered on its own merits.
The granting of permission on this site does not automatically ensure the approval of
other similar proposals.
Conclusion
The slate hanging to the front wall is acceptable, subject to requiring details for approval.
The changes to the windows are permitted development.
The rear extension is positioned at lower ground and ground floor levels and is not
readily visible from public views within the Conservation Area or Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
Although it is acknowledged that the extension will increase the size of the building, the
bulk has contained by having a steep mono-pitched roof, with a dormer window. The
effect on light and outlook is not substantial enough to warrant refusing the application on
grounds of amenity.
Human Rights Act
Due regard has been given to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular
Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8, namely the right to the peaceful enjoyment of
property and the right to respect for private and family life. The concerns expressed
through the letters of representation are acknowledged and the neighbours’ rights have
been carefully assessed against Article 8 of the Act but, arriving at a recommendation on
this application, those rights have been balanced against the rights of the applicant under
Article 1, Protocol 1 and the wider planning aims as expressed through the planning
policies for the area.
Recommendation
Conditional approval.
Conditions
1 - NS03 (Standard NS3)
2 - NB25 (Windows. NB25)
3 - Non Standard
Slate Details
Cttee 04.09.02
DC0901MW