Case Officer:
M R Evans
Site:
Fairholm, Chapel Lane, Stoke Fleming, Dartmouth, Devon, TQ6
0PA
Application No:
(i)
(ii)
Date Received:
31st July 2001
Agent:
Michael Hope Architect Baltic Wharf Business Park Totnes
Devon TQ9 5EW
Applicant:
Mrs B Reitmeier
Development:
(i)
Conservation Area Consent to remove roof and construct
new roof at a level to match adjacent property
(ii)
Construction of roof with dormer windows and rooflights
51/1288/01/CA
51/1289/01/F
1
Garage
way
Cause
Fords House
1
es
87.2m
Elm Cott
1 to
1
Sinks
to
Bidders
London
1
Inn
Gardens
LAN
E
Stoke House
Hope
Cosy Corner
Cottage
Cottage
1
Issues
Pump
85
es
ttag
Co
se
Ro
.5 m
85
PO
Sinks
Issues
3
Cottag
e
BM
9m
.2
s
Seaview
2
73.5m
Sinks
The
1
2
Cott
le
nda
Gle
High
Retreat
Issues
1 to 6
White Ladies
BM 76.63m
Cross
(restored)
87.4m
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
Southfield
or civil proceedings. South Hams
District Council. LA 079391. 2001
Leonards
Cove
Scale 1:1250
For internal reference only – no further copies to be made
DC0901MW
Stoke House
3
CHAPEL
(PH)
18
6
7 to
Albert House
2
9
su
Is
Policies
Development Boundary
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Heritage Coast
Consultations
Devon County Council – County Highways Authority
No comment
South West Water
No comments received
Environment Agency
No comment
Environmental Health Section
No objection
Parish
Stoke Fleming Parish Council make the following observations:See letters
Letters of representation are included in the Members’ bundle
Case Officer Report
The Site and the Proposal
Fairholm, comprises a mid-terraced property which fronts immediately onto Chapel Lane
and backs onto the rear garden of Upway, Chapel Lane.
The ridge levels of the roofs of both properties either side are located at a higher level
than that of the application building, the front roof when viewed from the nearest public
vantage point from the narrow lane in front of the property, is the least prominent of the
two elevations, with the rear of the property being more open to public view from the
main Stoke Fleming to Strete road (A379), and from which there is a view of the whole
terrace.
The proposal is retrospective and incorporates an increase in the ridge and eaves level to
match that of the adjoining property. The proposal originally included the construction of
two pitched roof dormers on the more prominent rear elevation and two rooflights on the
front elevation.
Following concerns expressed by both the Conservation officer and planning officer to
this proposal, the applicant’s agent was requested to change the scheme to replace the
two dormers on the rear, which were considered to have an adverse impact on the
appearance and character of the terrace, with two traditionally designed conservation
rooflights, and relocate one pitched roof dormer to the front elevation.
Copies of the revised plans were forwarded to the Parish Council, Local Ward Member
and original objectors in addition to any neighbours who were on Council record as
DC0901MW
having viewed the initial planning application drawings, to enable any further comments
to be made regarding the revised roof design.
Consultations and Representations
Stoke Fleming Parish Council raised no objections to the original scheme. However, the
Council raised objections to the revised scheme particularly regarding the retrospective
nature of the development and raised concerns that the proposal will have a significant
effect on the Conservation Area, especially when viewed from the A379 opposite Stoke
Fleming Post Office, and regarding an increase of overlooking of neighbouring
properties. Comments were also made that neighbouring properties did not appear to
have been adequately informed of the revised proposals. A second letter from the Parish
Council raised concerns regarding:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The style of the door facing Chapel Lane not being in keeping with the original
plans.
The outside wall, facing Chapel Lane being cleared for a plastic electricity meter
box which is considered out of keeping with the Conservation Area.
The window frames, which have already been installed are small Georgian, not in
the original plans and as they are set for double glazing are not in keeping with the
Conservation Area.
The door step does not comply to building regulations.
The soil vent pipe will need to be cast iron, not plastic.
The fascia board should be of the same specification as the adjoining properties.
A third letter from the Parish Council states that the inclusion of any type of dormer
window on the front elevation would be extremely detrimental, and a gross invasion of
the privacy of the residential property opposite, resulting in a possible conflict with the
owners Human Rights, ref: Article 8 and first Protocol Article 1. It is requested that a full
site inspection is taken prior to any decision being taken.
Copies of these letters from the Parish Council have been included in Members’ bundle
of letters. One letter of objection to the original plans was received which raised
concerns about the dominant nature of the two rear dormers on the overall prominent
rear roofscape and subsequent overlooking of the rear garden, and suggesting that the
dormers be relocated to the less publicly visible front elevation.
Three letters of objection were received regarding the revised proposals, raising
concerns regarding the adverse visual dominant impact of the front dormer which is
considered to alter the unique character of the area, and regarding the increased
overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to adjoining property. Concerns were also
raised regarding the retrospective nature of the proposal and query the apparent lack of
neighbour notification regarding the revised plans. Copies of these letters are included
in Members’ bundle of letters.
Analysis
It is suggested that the contentious part of the application relates to the construction of a
single pitched roof dormer on the front elevation of the property, rather than the raising
of the eaves and ridge height.
DC0901MW
Central Government advice, in the form of PPG15 – “Planning and the Historic
Environment” Annex C, states, regarding proposals to site dormers and rooflights on
prominent roof slopes, that “Any decision as to whether new dormers or rooflights can be
added to a roof must be approached carefully …. new dormers should not upset a
symmetrical design of either an individual building or a terrace, either an individual
building or a terrace. Regions have differing traditional types of dormer and these
traditions should be respected.”
The rear elevation of this property and terrace is open to public view from the A379, main
road between Dartmouth and Slapton and is considered to be a more prominent roof
slope than that of the roof slope on the front elevation, which due to the narrow, width and
alignment of Chapel Lane and existence of high stone walling, is barely visible from
public vantage points.
In terms of size and design, the front dormer is of traditional size and design and
incorporates a small pitched roof. The appellant has indicated that the glazing of this
window will be obscure glass to avoid any overlooking of the opposite neighbouring
property.
The existing first floor, front elevation window of the property has recently been replaced
under “Permitted Development” rights and it should be noted that this window already
overlooks the opposite property to a greater extent than that of the dormer window, and
planning permission is not required for this work.
The front dormer window is barely open to public vantage points and will therefore have
an insignificant impact on the character and appearance of the building or surrounding
Conservation Area, and if fitted with obscure glazing will not overlook the neighbouring
property.
The principle of locating a single dormer on the less prominent front elevation, and
construction of two small Conservation design rooflights on the rear roof slope, is fully in
accordance with PPG advice and is considered to be in keeping with the appearance and
character of the building, adjoining terrace and wider Conservation Area.
The works referred to in the Parish Council’s concerns numbered 1-4, related to works
carried out as “Permitted Development”, and are not a material planning consideration in
the determination of this application.
A condition has been suggested regarding the use of cast-iron rainwater goods in
accordance with point 5.
The fascia board is shown on the revised plans as being in keeping with the adjoining
property, and a condition has been suggested to ensure that the fascia board is
traditionally finished with a painted finish, to satisfy point 6.
Human Rights Act
Due regard has been given to the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Whilst the
concerns expressed through representations are acknowledged, and it is accepted that
the neighbours are affected by the proposal, the applicant, in exercising rights under
Article 1, Protocol 1 of the Act, has produced a development scheme which is acceptable
DC0901MW
in form and design and accords with planning policy. The rights of individuals who will
be effected to some extent as a result of these proposals have been carefully assessed
against Article 8 of the Act, but arriving at a recommendation on this application, those
rights have been balanced against wider planning aims of achieving a good standard of
residential development in the public interest.
Recommendations
(i)
51/1288/01/CA
Unconditional approval
(ii)
51/1289/01/F
Conditional approval
Conditions
(ii)
51/1289/01/F
1 - NA24 (Natural Slates. NA24)
2 - NA25 (Rainwater Goods. NA25)
3 - NB26 (Obscured Glazing. NB26)
5 - Non Standard
Fascia Board
DC0901MW