ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –
TUESDAY 10 DECEMBER 2002
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
TCP/3148A/P805/02
Two storey extension to form kitchen/breakfast and sitting room on ground floor with three bedrooms over (revised plans), 28 Westwood Road, Ryde
Summary
To consider revised proposals in respect of an application that was the subject of a site visit by this Committee some months ago.
This application was initially considered by this Committee at the meeting held on 16 July 2002. The application was recommended for conditional approval, but was deferred in order to enable Members to visit the site before taking a decision. An amended and updated report was prepared for the site visit which took place on 26 July 2002. This report is appended for Members’ information.
Notwithstanding allegations of technical difficulties, which, if they exist, can be resolved through the design of specialist foundations at the building regulations stage, Members expressed some concern about the overall size, scale and ground coverage of the proposed extension and the impact that may have on the amenities currently enjoyed by the neighbouring property due to loss of sunlight, overshadowing, over-dominance etc.
Members were not prepared to support the application in its submitted form. The Committee decided to defer consideration to enable the Development Control Manager to initiate negotiations with the applicant in terms of the overall depth and/or width of the proposed extension, preferably moving it away from the boundary with the neighbouring property in order to reduce the adverse effects already referred to above.
A preliminary revised plan was received in late August 2002. In this particular case, because of the involvement of Members following the site visit, it was decided to consult with the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Committee, the latter is also the Local Member. They were advised that the preliminary revisions comprised:
· The overall ground coverage of the proposed extension remains unchanged.
· The overall floorspace of the proposed first floor accommodation has been amended by moving the first floor element a further 1.10 m away from the boundary with the neighbouring property.
· Arising from the amendments to the first floor accommodation the proposed double span hipped roof has been redesigned, resulting in a nominal reduction in the overall height to ridge.
· The existing conservatory “crammed” between the existing flank wall and the boundary with the neighbouring property will be demolished and replaced with a smaller lean-to conservatory which will align with the short section of exposed sloping roof on the larger ground floor element of the proposed extension.
· The revisions still propose ground and first floor high level windows which face but do not overlook the neighbouring property.
Both Members who were consulted indicated that they were satisfied with the preliminary revisions and the applicant was invited to prepare and submit revised drawings on this basis but without prejudice to the final outcome.
The revised drawings were not received until late October 2002. The Development Control Manager decided that it was necessary to notify the owner/occupiers of both neighbouring properties before asking Members to determine the application.
Representations
The neighbours were notified on 29 October 2002 and invited to submit their comments on the revised scheme.
To date all the comments received are from the neighbouring property to the northeast of the application site. Members may recall that they visited this property when we made the aforementioned site visit earlier this year. There are three separate written representations from the owner/occupier (1), his agent (2), who is a local chartered surveyor, and a mainland property management company (3) whose proprietor appears to be a relation.
The representations can be summarised in the following terms:
1.
· Representations principally relate to a letter submitted by the applicant several months ago.
· Believes that the affect on his property will be far greater than any affect on the other neighbouring property, consequently there is no objection from that owner/occupier.
· The size of the extension is exceptionally large and will set a precedent.
· Proposed extension will “impinge on our enjoyment of our conservatory/dining room and garden”. The revised plans with the 1.1 metre setback at first floor level is “inconsequential to us”.
2.
· View of the Committee was that the original proposals were disproportionate and overbearing in nature having regard to the local environment.
· Revised scheme does not address these issues.
· Client’s property will suffer “substantial blight”, should application be approved.
3.
· Allegations about local ground movement.
· Insufficient information to determine the application.
· Approval may set a precedent which could lead to further similar developments affecting local environment.
· Further approvals of a similar nature could increase traffic using Westwood Road.
There are two points arising from these representations on behalf of the owner/occupier of the neighbouring property.
· When the application was last considered the consensus view of Members was that the Building Control Officer in attendance at and following the site visit had managed to satisfactorily respond to any objections relating to ground instability and/or surface water drainage. Consequently, my advice to Members is that they should focus on the overall size and design of the proposed extension, in its revised form, and the likely impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of the one neighbouring property.
· The owner/occupier has asked that all three letters be circulated to Members of this Committee. The applicant who made written representations several months ago has not asked for a similar facility. In terms of the reasons for the Committee resolution to defer the application for negotiation on matters relating to scale and size of the proposed extension I believe that the abovementioned summary, if read in conjunction with the advice, adequately sets out the position of the owner/occupier of the neighbouring property.
However, the latest written representations are available for Members’ inspection at Seaclose Offices and will be made available, if requested, at this meeting.
Options
1. To grant conditional planning permission for the revised scheme in accordance with the recommendation set out in the report to the Development Control Committee (Site Visits) on 26 July 2002.
2. To refuse planning permission on grounds to be specified by Members of the Committee.
Conclusion
In my view, the revisions are relatively minor in nature but do go some way towards mitigating against any undesirable impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the owners of the neighbouring property. The applicant has taken notice of the Committee’s concern and reduced the overall floor space at first floor level, which itself has necessitated internal amendments to the level of proposed accommodation, as well as confirming that the existing conservatory will be replaced with a new conservatory which will be further away from the boundary with the neighbouring property.
When taking into account that, in my opinion, there are no sustainable objections to the proposed two storey extension in its original form, consequently we were recommending conditional approval.
In making this recommendation it should be made clear that it is recognised that this extension will have some impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property by some overshadowing and associated diminution of light in the latter part of the day. This is not sufficient in itself to justify refusal of permission particularly as there is no apparent loss of privacy as there is no increase in the level of overlooking and the space between the buildings means that potential overdominance would be a difficult case to defend on appeal.
Recommendation
To grant conditional planning permission for the revised scheme in accordance with the recommendation set out in the report to the Development Control Committee (Site Visits) on 26 July 2002.
Development Control Manager
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment Services