As this is a householder application, in the event of an appeal against a refusal of planning permission, which is to be dealt with on the basis of written representations, any representations made about this application will be sent to the Secretary of State, and there will be no further opportunity to comment at appeal stage.
The application is available for inspection online and at the offices of Planning Services, Development Management, Seafield House, Kirkleatham Street, Redcar, TS10 1SP. The offices are open from 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Thursday and 8.30am to 4.30pm on Friday.
Please note that all comments received in respect of planning applications will become background papers (as defined in the Access to Information Act 1985) and accordingly will be available for public inspection. You should be aware that by making a representation you are consenting to your name and address being included in the planning file, which is open to public inspection. Full details of our Privacy Notice regarding how we collect and use personal information, is available on the Council’s website.
| # | Condition Details |
|---|---|
| 1 | (1) The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of this permission. REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
| 2 | (2) This permission relates only to the amended plan(s) received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 November 2004. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt. |
| 3 | REASON FOR DECISION:The main issue with regard to this proposal is whether this scheme will have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring residential occupiers and what impact the scheme will have on the visual amenity of the area in general. The application dwelling is sited gable end to road with the ridge running back to front. The proposal includes dormer windows running the length of the roof with pitched roofs. The dormers have been set back 500 mm from the verge at the front to maintain the original roof profile. This solution has been carried out in other instances when constructing such dormers and is considered acceptable in visual terms. The land slopes away as it goes into the rear garden therefore the 4m extension at the rear which replaces an existing large conservatory turns into a full two storey gabled extension. Although this projects further back than the house at 5 Tidkin Lane, I am of the opinion that the separation distance of approximately 6m which includes a footpath within the applicants curtilage and a footpath and garage within the neighbours site is sufficient to overcome any amenity issues in respect of domination or loss of light. There are existing dormer windows in the facing roof slope and this additional dormer extension will provide for a bathroom window which will be obscure glazed. A further window at the southern end will be a bedroom and does not impact upon the neighbour. The single storey extensions on the eastern side which replace an existing garage are located to the rear of the property off the existing drive and project 6.6 m past the rear of the main building. The garage element of the extension will have a pitched roof running front to back with a gable facing onto 9 Tidkin Lane. A footpath gap of just over 1 m will be maintained. The rear portion of that extension is to be used as a utility room and store and will have a separate pitched roof sloping side to side and running back into the garage roof. This extension will run parallel with the neighbours existing conservatory where a fence and substantial shrubbery are located on the boundary. This part of the proposals should not impact on that neighbour to a degree that would warrant refusal. The occupiers of 9 Tidkin Lane are however concerned about the design of this part of the scheme and the use of pitched roofs on the basis that many of the existing properties on the estate were constructed with flat roofs and therefore that style should be maintained. The Council do now encourage schemes so long as they do not impact on neighbours to construct extensions with pitched roofs as it is considered a more acceptable design visually particularly at two storey. In this particular case the extension is to the rear of the property and will not be seen from the road other than when directly in front and is wholly acceptable in design terms. |
| 4 | NOTE: Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan Policies GEN1, GEN2 and H10 were relevant to this decision. |
| Address | Date Sent | Date Reconsulted | Expiry Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 TIDKIN LANE GUISBOROUGH TS148BX | 14/10/2004 | - | 04/11/2004 |
| 4 TIDKIN LANE GUISBOROUGH TS148BX | 14/10/2004 | - | 04/11/2004 |
| 5 TIDKIN LANE GUISBOROUGH TS148BX | 14/10/2004 | - | 04/11/2004 |
| 9 TIDKIN LANE GUISBOROUGH TS148BX | 14/10/2004 | - | 04/11/2004 |
| Site or Press | Description | Display Date | Expiry Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| S | SITE NOTICE ONLY | 20/10/2004 | 10/11/2004 |