REDCAR AND CLEVELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT)

COMMITTEE DATE: 03/03/2010

LIST: D

APPLICATION NO: R/2010/0052/RS

Application for: / PART TWO STOREY PART SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND DETACHED GARAGE
At: / 24 THE GROVE, GUISBOROUGH

PROPOSAL

The application site is located at 24 The Grove, Guisborough. The site is the southern-most plot on the west side of The Grove and as such, fronts both ‘The Grove’, Huttton Lane and ‘The Avenue’. The house comprises a large semi-detached house set within a large garden that itself is populated with mature trees. The trees are protected under a blanket / group TPO and collectively form the distinguishing feature of the site and the surrounding area.

The current proposal is for the erection of a part single, part two storey extension to the side and rear and the erection of a detached double garage to the south east of the existing house. The proposal would involve the felling of a mature Oak in order to accommodate the proposed extensions. In recognition of this loss, the applicant proposes to plant a 5m specimen oak on land near the south-western boundary of the site.

The current application is a resubmission of an earlier proposal that was refused planning permission in 2009 (ref. R/2009/0040/FF). This application was also for a two storey side extension and detached garage, and was refused due to the loss of the mature oak, as well as a mature Scots Pine and young Sycamore. The current proposal is essentially for the same development as that previously, but with the retention of the Scots Pine and Sycamore, and the replacement Oak.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework 2007:

Policy CS1 Securing a Better Quality of Life

Policy CS2 Locational Strategy

Policy CS20 Promoting Good Design

Policy DP1 Development Limits

Policy DP2 Location of Development

Policy DP3 Sustainable Design

OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) - Delivering Sustainable Development.

ousing

Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) – Housing

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

Neighbour Consultation

Letters were sent to local residents and on 4th February 2010, the consultation period ended on 25th February 2010.

Two responses have been received from local residents, objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

·  The trees at 24 The Grove have been and still are, a significant feature of the landscape in the Hutton area. A replacement 5m tree would not be a fair replacement for the existing tree which is approximately twice the height of the house;

·  The statement that the tree should be felled because it does not form part of the Avenue ‘group’ is wrong. Would you allow a tree to be felled in a field because it is not within a forest?;

·  If the extensions were approved this would lead to further pressure to fell more trees in the future due to their proximity to the extension on the grounds of ‘safety’;

·  If extensions to houses are not allowed to be built in front of the building line then the planned garage is 6.6m in front of the building line. The garage is large and there are no similar big garages as close to the back of the paths in the Grove or surrounding area. The garage would be out of keeping with its surroundings and cannot be described as a ‘book end’;

·  The protrusion of the rear extension beyond the existing rear walls will significantly block light to the rear of the adjoining semi;

·  The extension will overlook the neighbouring garden to the detriment of privacy;

·  The design of the extension would be out of keeping with the houses on the road and the appearance of the two semi detached houses will suffer;

·  The extensions would bring absolute chaos in an already narrow Grove during the long construction period.

Should any further responses be received these will be reported at the Committee.

Cllr Graham Jeffery: has requested that the application be determined by Planning Committee.

Peter Sherry (arborist): The mature oak is a magnificent specimen and is worth protecting. No matter how large the replacement tree (or trees) given the size of the existing specimen this would not compensate for its loss.

Highways and Transportation: No response received.

Guisborough Town Council: No response received.

REASONED ARGUMENT:

Policy CS20 promotes good design across the borough. Policy DP3 sets the expectation that all development should respect or enhance the character of the site and its surroundings.

In terms of design and amenity, the proposed extension would be of a height and depth to ensure that there would be no material harm caused to the amenity of neighbouring properties, since there would be a gap of 6.5m between the extension and the party boundary. Also, the design of the proposal, whilst having a truncated appearance, would nonetheless be compatible with the design of the existing dwelling. As such, it is considered that the design of the extension would be acceptable.

The proposed garage would be well in advance of the front building line of the existing house. However, in this case the garage would not obscure views of the house and since the property is the first on the road, the garage would act as a ‘book-end’ to the street. As such, provided a suitable landscaping scheme was to be submitted, there is no objection in principle to the siting of the garage or its design.

The side/rear extension would necessitate the removal of the mature oak tree at the site. The oak here is a significant specimen and is considered to enhance the character and appearance of the streetscene and wider ‘Avenue’, of which this tree loosely forms a group. These trees are covered under a blanket TPO that has helped to preserve this important asset within the neighbourhood. The applicant has recognised the significance of this and other trees within the site and has proposed to plant a replacement oak specimen. At 5m high, the replacement specimen would be a significant new planting. The Council’s arborist has examined the existing oak which is in good health and displays good vitality, and has considered the merits of its replacement. The arborist has concluded that such is the visual impact of the current oak, a replacement tree (or trees) would not adequately compensate for its removal in the short or medium term. As such, the loss of the oak would be detrimental to the visual qualities of the site and surrounding area and would therefore be unacceptable.

The applicant has put forward the argument that the existing Oak is responsible for some significant structural damage to their property, and that the tree is therefore harmful to property, which should be taken into account in determining the application. Officers have viewed the property and have noted there are indeed certain areas of cracking within the external jointing and internal plasterwork. However, to date it has not been proven that such cracking is structurally significant to the building and that if it is then this is being caused by the oak tree. In addition, no evidence has been put forward to demonstrate that if the oak is responsible for such damage, no structural remedies exist that would secure the retention of the tree. As such, whilst the applicant may well have a valid argument in this respect, the removal of the oak at this stage would be premature without the support of an adequate report by a structural engineer or other suitably qualified person. In this respect the onus to provide such evidence is upon the applicant.

In light of the above issue regarding tree loss the proposal is considered to be unacceptable.

CONCLUSION

The proposed side extension and detached garage in themselves would not harm the character or appearance of the existing property or wider streetscene. However, the removal of the mature oak, despite its proposed replacement, would have a significant adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. As such, it is recommended that the proposal should be refused on this basis.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly I would recommend that the application should be REFUSED.

REASON

1. The proposed development, by virtue of its proposed siting, would require the removal of a mature Oak, the loss of which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of this group of TPO trees and the wider streetscene of The Grove, Hutton Lane and The Avenue. The proposal would therefore contrary to policies CS20 and DP3 of the adopted development plan 2007.