2007/0822 / Mr & Mrs AHambling / Craig & Green Partnership
WARD/PARISH: / CASE OFFICER: / DATE RECEIVED:
Walney North / Barry Jesson
01229 876323 / 15/06/2007
STATUTORY DATE:
09/08/2007
LOCATION:
Land to the rear of 30North Scale,Barrow-in-Furness
PROPOSAL:Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking
SAVED POLICIES OF THE FORMER LOCAL PLAN:
POLICY B3
Applications for residential development on unallocated sites will be permitted where they accord with the sequential approach of the Structure Plan and also satisfy the following criteria:
i) The site is located within the built up area of existing settlements or the development cordons identified in Policy B13; and
ii) The siting, scale, layout and design (in the materials and form of the buildings) of the development is sensitive to the local environment, it promotes the principles of ‘Secure by Design’ and adequate parking provision is made; and
iii) Adequate access arrangements can be provided, including servicing the site by the public transport and by cycle routes; and
iv) The development is laid out in a way that maximises energy efficiency; and
v) The development will not result in the loss of land which has a recognised or established nature conservation interest; and
vi) The development must not cause an undue increase in traffic passing through existing residential areas such as to be detrimental to residential amenity or highway safety; and
vii) Adequate water supplies, foul and surface water sewers and sewerage treatment facilities exist or can be provided; and
viii) 'A risk-based approach will be adopted for development in or affecting flood risk areas to minimise the risk of flooding associated with the site and the potential effect development of the site might have elsewhere through increased run off or a reduction in the capacity of flood plains. This shall be in accordance with the sequential characterisation of flood risk set out in Table 1 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 'Development and Flood Risk; and
ix) Where contamination is suspected, a desk study is undertaken and if necessary a site investigation is undertaken and remediation strategy submitted.
POLICY B13
In the following villages, residential development and the conversion of existing buildings for residential purposes will be allowable within the residential cordon, especially if it contributes to the maintenance of that community, subject to conformity with the criteria of Policy B3 and the principles of Structure Plan Policy ST3:
Askam & Ireleth, BiggarVillage, Lindal, Marton, Newton, North Scale, Rampside, RoaIsland.
POLICY B15
Where privacy is to be protected through distance, a minimum of 21 metres will be required between the facing windows of habitable rooms of different homes. Exceptions to this policy may be made for the facing windows of ground floor habitable rooms, where adequate screening exists and also in cases where normal standards of separation cannot be achieved and existing standards will not be eroded by accepting distances of less than 21 metres.
The use of obscure glazing in habitable room windows will not be an acceptable measure to overcome the provisions of this policy if this is deemed to provide a sub-standard level of accommodation.
POLICY D30
Development proposals which may cause significant damage or destruction to a tree or woodland protected by a Tree Preservation Order, or within a Conservation Area, will only be permitted where;
a)No alternative site is available; or
b)There is an overriding need for the proposal which outweighs the need to preserve the tree or woodland; or
c)Mitigating measures are available to minimise damage and secure worthwhile replacement planting.
POLICY D31
The location, layout and detailed design of all new development must pay regard to existing trees and their future growth potential and any landscaping scheme needs to balance the relationship between trees and buildings to avoid damaging effects from one to the other.
POLICY D32
In order to protect trees from damage during development, planning conditions will be imposed to ensure that adequate measures are taken to preserve and protect all trees identified, to be retained in any development.
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:Quality design integrates well with surrounding barn structures. Siting and orientation minimises any reduction of amenity levels for surrounding neighbours.
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:REPRESENTATIONS:
Development Advertised on site and in the Local Press
The Occupiers of 2 –14 (evens) Leighton Drive, 25, 25A, 27, 29, 40, 48 North Scale, 28 – 36 (evens) North Scale, The Nook, Four Beeches, North Scale, Barrow-in-Furness all informed.
The Occupier, 48 North Scale, Barrow-in-Furness – dated 28.06.07
“My wife and I are objecting to the planning application of the proposed house to be built at the rear of 30 North Scale, because we feel that it is an over development of the site. The site is in a conservation area of outstanding natural beauty and we feel that this development would spoil the site. We also think that it would block light off our property as it looks to be approximately 10 metres away from our kitchen diner.
The boundary wall is only 8.8 metres from our kitchen diner window, we lose a lot of light because of the trees on Mr. Hambling’s land already and if this house was built it would leave about a 3 metre gap between the house and the nearest tree.
We also feel that we would lose privacy from our property because the 2nd storey windows will be in full view of our windows i.e. kitchen diner, dining room, bathroom and bedroom. We also feel the parking for the said property would cause noise and disturbance as it is close to my son’s bedroom.
We don’t think the pergola would look right in a conservation area and it seems to be very high. The window behind the pergola turns towards our property, we are also concerned about access for a fire engine, it there was a fire, God forbid, the easiest way to run hoses would be from our property, we have just had our drive laid in block paving at a cost of £5000 and we do not want heavy fire engines on it.
We do not want to be seen to be killjoys or spoil sports obviously we are not happy with the proposed development. If Mr. Hambling came up with another design for a single storey property we would find this a lot easier to live with. If it is possible we would appreciate a site visit from yourselves or the members of the committee to come to our home and consider our objections in order for them to make a fair and sensible decision. I would also like to take the opportunity to ask permission to attend the planning meeting and also ask for permission to speak at the meeting.”
The Occupier, 48 North Scale, Barrow in Furness – dated 3.12.07
“I am responding to the letter your department sent me dated 29th November 2007 concerning the amended plans for the proposed dwelling at the rear of 30 North Scale. The position of the proposed dwelling as you kindly explained to me is now 2 metres back from the north elevation of my bungalow.
I have measured the distance from the proposed position of the building to the wall to the rear of Leighton Drive and it is 6.5 metres however the plan submitted by the architects shows this distance to be 7.5 metres, I dont see how the property will fit in the position proposed I enclose plans to show you what I mean.
I am also concerned about the loss of privacy because of the proposed study on the second floor, which by my reckoning will be within a 45 degree angle of our dining room and about 14 metres away, as I am aware Mr Hambling works from home and obviously would spend a lot of time in this study as I have said in my previous letter if the proposed dwelling was a single storey I would have no objection to it, as I said before I will enclose plans to explain myself more clearly”.
The Occupiers, 14 Leighton Drive, Barrow-in-Furness
“With reference to your letter dated 20th June 2007 in connection with the above Planning Application, my wife and I would like to strongly oppose the proposed erection of the detached dwelling on the land as stated.
The reason for the opposition is that the land in question is really over developed and Mr. Hambling has just built another dwelling near the proposed site and now this new building will infringe on our privacy and that of our nearest neighbours.
With the Chapelfield development, and now this, I think we in Leighton Drive are now really against any more building especially as this site is not very big and the building will be really squashed in the over developed location.
We hope the Planning Committee will voteagainst this development and leave what green land there is alone.”
The Occupier, 40 North Scale, Barrow-in-Furness
‘Re the new dwelling on land at the rear of 30 North Scale.
I strongly object to the access and parking of more cars, noise and lack of privacy, which might put people off buying my house and may also affect the value.
I also think we have had enough houses built around here recently putting an extra strain on the local amenities.’
The Occupiers, 48 North Scale, Barrow in Furness - dated 10th July 2007
“We would like to add a few comments to our previous letter dated 20, June 2007. After giving some thought to Mr Hambling's application (rear 30 North Scale), we feel that the proposed dwelling is too close to our property and the west elevation is so close to the existing sandstone wall if excavation takes place for the footings I think it would weaken and undermine the wall. I have just spent two months repairing this wall on my side but it is an old wall and is very fragile.
As you know we live in a conservation area and we can't understand how Mr. Hambling is going to get the equipment into the site without destroying the existing medieval walls.
On the plan submitted by Mr Hambling showing existing trees one is not shown in the west elevation in the top north corner there is a very old hawthorn tree about 18ft high on Mr Hambling's land (this is illustrated on the plan enclosed) which is very close to the proposed dwelling. We like this tree and would not want it to be cut down we feel this tree and all of the others nearby enhance our lives and give us great pleasure and they support a lot of wildlife.
My wife and I think that this particular tree we have mentioned should have a protection order on it and if it has not we would like to apply for one. We bought this property because it is surrounded by beautiful trees. Thank you for taking this into consideration”.
Representations received since previous meeting
The Occupiers 32 & 48 North Scale, Barrow in Furness – dated 10th February 2008
“I have some additional information which I consider to be of great importance to this application. It is concerning the root protection of the oak tree on the site myself and Mr Wright, the owner of the land on the other side of the site, have come to the conclusion that there is only one route available for Mr Hambling’s services and drains and that is through the small doorway to the site, which goes through the centre of the route protection area of the Oak tree (I enclose plan).
Mr Wright and myself are not allowing any services, drains, materials or equipment through our properties and the land to the north of the site is the back gardens of Leighton Drive which is heavily built up and runs uphill making it impossible to use this land for the services and drains (I enclose plan).
The land shaded red shows the surrounding properties of Mr Hambling’s land. In the arboricultural report Mr Hambling submitted, on page 10 it quite clearly states “No underground services to be installed within the root protection area of any retained trees ( I enclose a copy of this page).
In the planning officers report condition no. 3 it quite clearly states that the tree protection plan is implemented if any services or drains are going through a root protection are then this condition is being contravened, also Mr Wright informs me that there are some archaeological bee hives in the south boundary wall and has contacted the County Archaeologist, we await his reply.
I realise that the position of the services and drains may not be normally taken into account, but with little room for them to go into and so much emphasis being placed on the protection of the trees, I feel that this should be taken into consideration.
As I said at the meeting when the turning area is enlarged this will also affect the route protection area of the lime tree and the horse chestnut. I would appreciate it if you take these facts into consideration”.
Craig & Green Architects dated 14.2.08
“We understand that, despite the officer's recommendation for approval, the above application was deferred `minded to refuse' at the committee meeting on 5th February 2008. We accordingly provide additional information for the consideration of the Committee.
Our client had previously commissioned a tree specialist's report to assess the impact of the development upon the existing trees (at the request of the Local Authority). We enclose a synopsis of tree protection proposals extracted from that report for purposes of clarity. We also enclose an enlarged copy of figure 3 which illustrates the relevant areas.
With regard to the concerns about overlooking, we would question the non-compliance with the 21m rule. The proposed building is set at 90° to the bungalow concerned (No. 48) and all overlooking angles are approximately 45°.
Nevertheless, in good faith, our client has agreed to further modify the design to accommodate concerns.
We propose that the central first floor study window (B) be moved approximately 2.9m along the south elevation to align with the rooflight. This will increase the relevant window-to-window distance to 20.4m but at an acute angle (60° from centreline). Views in this direction will also be partially obscured by the pitched roof glazing to the projecting single storey area.
Rooflights are set too high in the roof slope to present an overlooking problem and the windows at low level will tend to generate a downward, limited horizon view.
We enclose further drawings numbered 2792/09 and 10 which illustrate overlooking potential. Please note that such views between dwellings will be largely obscured by the tree's canopy in all but winter months.
The window to Bedroom 3 (A) is required purely for Building Regulations 'means of escape' purposes (as the rooflight is too high up for this purpose). As we cannot omit this opening, we therefore propose that the window be glazed with obscured (etched) glazing. This will prevent any overlooking.
Bedroom 2 window (c) is beyond 21m distances.
We enclose copies of revised drawings numbered 2792/04B and 06B which incorporate these amendments.
Finally, with regard to service connections, our client has investigated a number of ways of 'non-intrusive' excavation. These include use of an air-lance for removal of soil without damaging roots, or a tunnelling `mole' excavator. We enclose a letter from Treescapes Consulting Ltd which confirms these methods as suitable for use where tree roots are to be protected. Also enclosed for information purposes are manufacturers' details of such equipment.
We understand that exactly 'how' the work is carried out is a matter for the contractor and is not a planning matter, so long as the work is practically possible and undertaken within the bounds of any relevant conditions of approval.
In light of the above information and modifications proposed by our client, we would ask that the committee reconsider the proposal, and find in agreement with the officer's recommendation to approve the application”.
Treescapes Consultancy Ltd – dated 13.2.08
Thank you for enquiring about the feasibility of installing underground services within the root zones of trees adjacent to the proposed development at 30 North Scale, Walney. Guidance concerning the installation of underground services in the root zones of trees has been published by the National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) and is also contained in the British Standard for Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations (BS 5837, 2005, sections 11.71 and 11.72). The guidance published by NJUG can be found on their website: The Arboricultaral Association was consulted when both the NJUG guidance and BS5837 (2005) were first published and they are accepted as industry best practice.
There are three methods for installing underground services within the root zones of trees:
- hand dig without severing roots larger than 25mm in diameter and thread
the services under the roots;
- use a pneumatic excavation device such as a soil pick
(http:/ air spade
( excavate a trench without severing any roots and thread the services under them; or
- use a mechanical mole.
Depending on soil conditions I consider that each of these methods could be used to install underground services at North Scale without causing undue harm to the trees.