TUESDAY 16 NOVEMBER 2004
TCP/26498/A – RETENTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE
AND REAR EXTENSION; RAISED DECK AREA AND SCREENING (REVISED PLANS) AT 5 AVENUE
ROAD, SHANKLIN, IOW PO37 7BG
Officer: Mr J Packman Tel: (01983)
823571
The report was originally requested by local member,
Cllr J Fleming as he was not prepared for the application to be dealt with
under the delegated procedure. There were two reasons for this request;
It was a retrospective planning permission that with
the raised decking exceeded the cubic allowance for permitted development.
Secondly, a complaint has been received about the
raised decking regarding the loss of residential amenity.
The application was considered by members on the 26
October 2004 in a revised form and was not accepted. Committee resolved to
defer the application to allow opportunity for further negotiations.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application, the processing of which
will have taken 13 and a half weeks to the date of the committee meeting. The
application has exceeded the prescribed 8 week period for the determination of
planning applications due to the need for committee consideration and further
negotiation.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to a semi-detached property within
a residential area. The property is located in a reasonably sized plot that
that slopes away in a southerly direction away from house. The existing
arrangement already affords a certain degree of overlooking from property to
property looking east. To the western boundary adjoining Milford road there is
a 1.2 metre wall, and on the eastern boundary there is 1.6 metre fence. The
street scene is mixed with a number of different detached and semi detached
properties of different styles, but generally of the same period. The dwelling
to which this application relates is built in a red brick style.
RELEVANT HISTORY
None
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
The application has been generated as a result of
enforcement investigation. Retrospective consent is sought for the retention of
a rear extension and raised decking built without the knowledge that planning
consent was needed.
The extension has been constructed of red brick and
has a slate roof. The dimensions are 5.0m x 5.0 metres square with a shallow
pitched roof that has a maximum ridge height of 3.0 metres. To the west there
are three Velux windows in the roof, a circular window and a pair of narrow
French Doors. The south facing rear section of the extension is glazed with 2.0
metre high windows. The extension is generally in keeping with the style of the
dwelling and the street scene and is set some 300mm from the east boundary
fence.
The raised decking replaces an existing section of
decking and is sited in an ‘L’ shape around the south and west elevations, with
a 1.0 metre handrail and steps. On site the applicant has indicated that the
new decking is situated approximately 200mm higher than the level of the old
decking. The previous scheme incorporated an opaque screen on the eastern side
of the decking where it adjoins the neighbouring property.
After further negotiation a second set of revised
plans has been received for this application. The revision involves the removal
of a 2.5 metre section of the raised decking closest to number 7 Avenue road
and the leveling of the ground level beneath to match that of the existing
grass level. This new revision does not include the addition of a privacy
screen.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The site is located inside the Sandown and Shanklin
development envelope.
Relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are as
follows:
S6 – All development will be expected to be of a high
standard of design
D1 – Standards of design
H7 – Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties
G4 - General locational criteria for development
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
None received.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
None received.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
The application has attracted one letter of objection.
The resident of the neighbouring property objects to
the raised decking on grounds of loss of privacy.
CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors are policy considerations, how the
development will impact on the character and appearance of the area and how the
proposal will impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
The design of the extension and the decking do not
significantly impact upon the character of the dwelling or the street scene.
They are of an appropriate design and scale and the materials match the
existing dwelling.
The extension does not have any windows on the east
elevation and therefore does not present any loss of privacy; it has minimum
impact on neighbouring amenity.
Both the extension and the raised decking are
contained within the same application. The objection relates specifically to
the raised decking so attention should be focused on whether the raised decking
specifically contributes to a loss of privacy.
A certain level of overlooking already exists on the
site, this is exacerbated by a relatively low fence on the eastern boundary.
The main issue concerns the degree of visual intrusion
and potential noise activity on the decking and whether this adversely impacts
on the amenities currently enjoyed by the neighbouring property.
The revision to reduce the decking on the East
elevation would minimise the impact on the neighbouring property by bringing
the potential activity on the decking away from the boundary. The proposed
leveling of the ground beneath the section of decking to be removed would
further reduce the impact on the neighbouring property.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to grant planning
permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8
(Right to Privacy and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful
Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The
impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other properties
in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst
there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be
balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner
proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is
considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the
applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the
legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public
interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all
material considerations, I am satisfied that the retention of the rear
extension, the removal of 2.5 metre section of the raised decking closest to
the boundary fence and the subsequent leveling of the ground beneath the
removed section of decking to grass level represents an acceptable form of
development.
The scale and design are in keeping with the existing
and surrounding dwellings and with the removal of part of the decking the
impact on the neighbouring property will be minimal.
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL (Revised Scheme)
Conditions/Reason:
1. Within
2 months of the date of this consent the section of decking indicated green
measuring 2.5 metres by 3.0 metres on the plan submitted on the 5 November 2004
shall be removed and the ground reinstated in accordance with condition 2.
Reason: In the
interests of the amenities of the area, neighbouring privacy and to comply with
policy D1 (Standards of design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2.
The ground level beneath the removed
decking shall be reduced to match that of the existing level of the lawn in
accordance with the approved plans within 2 months of the date of this decision
and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the
interests of the amenities of the area, neighbouring privacy and to comply with
policy D1 (Standards of design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
Head of Planning Services