Agenda item

Two storey rear extension, garage extension and demolition of existing detached garage – RATTON.

The committee was advised that Mr and Mrs Corke of 29 Upper Kings Drive had contacted the Council to advise that they would withdraw their objection to the proposal if the conditions suggested by the Council’s Arboriculturalist were applied to any approval.

The Specialist Advisor for Arboriculture stated that ‘the proposed extension’s southern wall was in very close proximity to three of the trees within the adjacent Beech hedge.  Although the hedge should not be considered a constraint to development it was a vital screen to the proposed extension and therefore if indicated as retained some conditions would be required should the application be approved.  In addition he queried whether a condition should be attached to retain a hedge that may be owned by 29 Upper Kings Drive. If the Council were to attach a condition to the hedge then it would have implications on the owner of 29 Upper Kings Drive and their ability to undertake maintenance works or indeed remove the hedge should they wish to do so.  Due to the existing hard standing patio area, retainer wall and swimming pool cabinet situated in the location indicated for the proposed foundation of the side wall, it would be unlikely to find substantial roots in this area.  Although root damage to the closest part of the hedge was unlikely the concern was that there may be damage to the canopy and the loss of the screen by means of facilitating the access required to build the extension including space required for scaffolding.  Although under common law the applicant was entitled to prune the hedge back to the boundary at present, he suggested that the applicant tie the hedge back away from the proposed extension and scaffolding in order to maintain the screen after development.  The Specialist Advisor for Arboriculture suggested additional conditions which were incorporated into the resolution below (conditions 7 to 15).

Mr Corke addressed the committee in objection stating that they did not wish to withdraw their objection to the scheme and that any groundwork would potentially damage the well established Beech hedge.  Mr Corke also expressed concern regarding the proposed side wall stating that it would appear more ‘industrial’ than residential due to its size and proximity to his property.

Mr Pesce, applicant, responded stating that the planning department had been fully consulted throughout the design of the extension at pre-application stage and that he was happy to adhere to the additional conditions proposed by the Specialist Advisor for Arboriculture.  Mr Pesce agreed that the protection of the trees would benefit both his property and the neighbouring property’s outlook.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before theexpiration of three years from the date of this permission 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordancewith the following approved drawings submitted on 23/03/2016:

DWG. NO.: 1307.02 Revision D - Preliminary Layouts

DWG. NO.: 1307.03 Revision A - Proposed Elevations - Planning

3) No Permitted Development, side elevation windows 4) No Permitted development dormers and roof alterations 5) Hand Dug foundations adjacent to Southern property boundary and sensitive treatment of any tree roots 6) Use of Matching brick and tile 7) Access to the garden should be from the north of the site 8) Demolition of the existing defunct swimming pool building should be also conditioned to be undertaken by hand in order to prevent damage by larger machinery 9) Detailed plans of services in relation to trees 10) Construction method statement 11) Protection of existing trees 12) Protection of retained trees 13) Tree Protection: Excavations 14) No Burning on site 15) Any trees along this common boundary that die within 5 years from the date of the completion of the extension (for a length of 6 m from the rear wall of the original rear wall of the property) shall be replaced at the applicants expense.