Planning Committee - 2nd July 2013 - Newark and Sherwood ...

In terms of detailing, the proposed dwellings incorporate a number of architectural details,
including dentil coursing and corbelling to the gables, interlocking clay pantiles, wedge
lintels and timber lintels. These features are identifiable within the conservation area and
Conservation Area Appraisal. The proposal with respect to detailed design is therefore
considered acceptable.
With respect to reason for refusal two, clearly the length of the access drive cannot be
reduced from that which was previously submitted. However, the width of the access
opening has been reduced significantly, and as such the entrance is not as grand as that
which was presented under the previous scheme. The revised entrance would not result in
there being a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent heritage assets (Fox Hollow
and Vine Cottage).
The Conservation Area Appraisal makes reference to both boundary walls and hedgerows
and identifies the positive contribution that they make to the character of the conservation
area. Although the proposed access would result in a reduction to the boundary wall and
hedgerow, it is not considered that this loss would be so significant that it would seriously
damage the wider character of the conservation area or that of its undesignated heritage
assets.
In light of the above consideration, I consider that the proposals respect the historic
character of the village, with specific reference to gable widths, ridge heights and detailed
design. The proposed scheme is therefore in accordance with Core Strategy Core Policy 14;
Local Plan policy C1; and the NPPF.
Amenity
The proposed siting, internal arrangement and fenestration is in essence the same as that
which was considered under the previous application. With respect to impact on amenity,
the previous case officer commented that, “Careful assessment has been made in relation to
the impact of the proposal on the amenity of existing occupiers. I acknowledge that Plot Two
is situated particularly close to the common boundary on the north-west corner of the site (3
and 3.5 metres at its closest point) however given the distances between the two storey
elements of the proposed to the rear elevations of the existing dwellings are 28 and 29
metres, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable degree of
overlooking. Any overbearing impact or loss of sunlight would be felt at the extremities of
the existing rear gardens and therefore I do not consider this impact to be unacceptable.”
Having visited the site, and the adjacent Lilac Cottage, I concur with the previous Officers
comments which present a fair representation of potential impacts. The site is bound by a
1.8 metre fence and there is significant tree coverage to the boundary of the adjacent Lilac
Cottage. The impact of overlooking would be minimal and would not, in my view affect the
amenity of the adjacent property.
With respect to Plot One, the comments of the previous officer are highly relevant and
reflect clearly and fairly the impacts of the proposed development on the amenity of
adjacent occupiers. The officer states, “The rear projection has a first floor window and is
situated approximately 9 metres from the common boundary with the property to the west. I
am satisfied that the relationship between the existing and proposed is acceptable and
would not result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking, overbearing impact or
21