Agenda and minutes

Site Inspection Sub-Committee - Monday, 17th July 2006 4.00 pm

modern.gov app available
View upcoming public committee documents on your iPad, Android Device or Blackberry Playbook with the free modern.gov app.

Contact: Dianne Scambler X5034 

Items
No. Item

22.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received by Councillor David Dickinson (Vice-Chair) and Councillor Raph Snape.

23.

Declarations of Any Interests

Members of the Sub-Committee are reminded of their responsibility to declare any personal interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2000, the Council’s Constitution and the Members Code of Conduct.  If the personal interest is a prejudicial interest, then the individual Member should not participate in a discussion on the matter and must withdraw from the Council Chamber and not seek to influence a decision on the matter.

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were declared.

24.

Minutes

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Site-Inspection Sub Committee held on 22 May 2006

Minutes:

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting of the Site Inspection Sub-Committee held on 22 May 2006 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

25.

Planning Application 06/00469/FUL

To visit and inspect the site deferred retrospective planning application for the formation of a pitched roof over an existing first floor flat roof dormer at 57 Lancaster Lane, Clayton-Le-Woods, and to make recommendation on the determination of the application to the Development Control Committee.

 

The application was deferred at the last Development Control Committee meeting on 20 June 2006. A copy of the report of the Development and Regeneration including the representations that were included on the addendum at this meeting have been attached for information.

 

An enforcement report relating to the works at 57, Lancaster Lane, Clayton-Le-Woods was also included on the agenda at the last Development Control Committee meeting on 20 June 2006 and a copy of this report is also attached for information.

 

The Ward Councillor who is not a Member of the Site Inspection Sub-Committee is also invited to attend the Site Inspection and take place in the discussion.

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee visited and inspected the location of the planning application that had been deferred by the Development Control Committee. The retrospective planning application sought permission to retain the formation of a of a pitched roof over an existing first floor flat roof dormer, at 57, Lancaster Lane, Clayton-Le-Woods.

 

The dormer is centred on the front roof plane, facing onto Lancaster Lane. The roof exceeds the height of the ridgeline by 0.6 metres and is therefore contrary to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extension Design Guidelines.

 

The property is set back from the highway by approximately 18 metres, and is relatively well screened by vegetation. However due to the bulk of the pitch roof and its siting above the ridgeline of the dwelling house, it is clearly visible within the street scene and Members felt it was an overly prominent and obtrusive feature, out of keeping with the character of the house.

 

The application was viewed from both the front and side aspects of the development and the views of the Ward Councillors were considered.

 

Although the Members of the Sub-Committee acknowledged that the owners had tried to make the development look aesthetically pleasing by painting the cladding in a colour to match the frames and eaves over the two front bay windows, it was still against planning policy and if allowed to remain, would set a precedent.

 

RESOLVED – That the Development Control Committee refuse the retrospective planning application 06/00469/FUL for the following reason:

 

The proposed extension is contrary to the Council’s approved House Extension Design Guidelines and Policy HS9 of the Adopted Chorley Borough Local Plan Review by reason of its design and external appearance, The proposed extension is overly prominent, poorly related visually to the existing dwelling, and detrimental to the street scene and the area as a whole.