REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION – 17 APRIL 2003
|
1. |
TCP/24730/A P/00100/03 Parish/Name: Bembridge Registration Date: 17/01/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs.
J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Alterations & extension
at 1st floor to form 2 bedrooms, en-suite bedroom & bathroom; alterations
to main roof Waypoint, Swains Road, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355XS |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested by local Member as he is not prepared
to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken
eleven weeks to date. The processing of
this application has gone beyond the prescribed time limit, this being the
first available meeting following local Member's request for Committee
consideration.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Waypoint is on the southern side of Swains Road in a
substantial plot in a residential area with mix of properties in the
locality. The property has previously
been extended at ground floor to the front and rear.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/2615/E - Extension to form double garage and
conversion of existing garage to games room, Waypoint, Swains Road,
Bembridge. Conditional approval June
1987.
TCP/24730 - Extension at first floor level to form two
bedrooms, bathroom and an en-suite bedroom.
Withdrawn May 2002.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Proposal is for alteration and extension at first
floor to form two bedrooms, en-suite bedroom and bathroom and alterations to
the roof. The existing garage and
playroom extend as a single storey element projecting forward of the main property
and the proposal is to raise the ridge of this element by 1.4 metres to provide
additional accommodation. The roof
alterations involve changing the design of the existing dwelling from a hipped
and cropped gable end to a symmetrical gable ended roof. It is proposed to change the external
appearance from red brick to buff self colour render.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Site is within the development envelope for Bembridge
and policies D1 (Standards of Design) and H7 (Extension and Alterations of
Existing Properties) are applicable.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Parish Council recommend approval.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection (from three properties) on
grounds of; out of scale to existing and adjacent properties, loss of privacy,
presents overlooking, dominates neighbouring property self contained extension
in front of building line with separate access, loss of light, precedent,
visual impact considerable from all aspects.
Concern also expressed that digital photographs are misleading as is
description and proposal will lead to depreciation on neighbouring property
value.
In favour removal of leaded windows, prefer gable ends
to roof (as long as no additional windows) and anything to soften its exterior
appearance but too large; effectively creates two houses at right angles to one
another.
Concern with way support letters obtained.
Twenty one letters have been received in support of
the application commenting proposal improves appearance, minimal impact on
surrounding properties, well designed building much more sympathetic to
character of Bembridge village, enhances quality and character of
environment. Further comments footprint
is unchanged, not impair neighbour's view, no loss of light, no increase in
traffic, no precedent, no affect on neighbour's property, no affect on adjacent
access.
Six letters
of objection/comment/concern with design and standards (policies D1(C), D1(G),
D1(H), D1(4F) - Housing Extensions and Alteration of Existing Properties),
size, scale, inappropriate, possible second unit, overdevelopment of site,
cramped appearance, negative impact on adjoining properties, oversized at first
floor virtually resulting in two houses, size and scale not akin to surrounding
properties, loss of sunlight and daylight, visual impact, double in height
dominating every house nearby, digital photograph does not portray the size of
the plot (the missing fence has now
been replaced showing the closeness of the boundary), the boundary between the
two houses approximately one metre to the right of the southwest wall of
Waypoint.
Two letters
withdrawing support, one of which objects
Letter from
agent enclosing a report to the Planning Committee in support of the
proposal. This report outlines the
revisions that have taken place on the previous application that was withdrawn. Report quotes Standard of Design Policy D1
arguing that the proposal will unquestionably enhance the appearance of the
property, the form and height of extension and new roofline is sympathetic in
scale with the buildings in the surrounding area, the proposed extension will
have a negligible effect on the daylight and sunlight received by adjoining
buildings, the building stands in a
large site and the proposed extension increases the cubic capacity of the house
by approximately 10%. Do not believe
that this can constitute overdevelopment.
The supporting document also refers to Policy H7 (Extension and
Alteration of Existing Properties), scale is entirely appropriate to a house of
this size, additional dwelling has not been created, the impact of the
neighbouring properties is negligible.
In addition
a series of photographs are submitted.
Request from
applicant to defer the determination of this application as she is not
available to publicly speak.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
Main policy considerations are whether or not the
extension is considered appropriate in terms of size and design and impact of
proposed extension on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers and area.
Proposal introduces two storey element forward of main
dwelling which, together with increase in height of existing garage/playroom
roof and overall alterations would result in significant addition to property
which is considered to present adverse impact compared to scale of dwelling
that exists.
It is relevant that there are a mix of properties in
the locality and that Waypoint is set back from the road, however, nothing in
the immediate vicinity presents with two storey element projecting forward of
the main building. It is also relevant
that the neighbouring property to the northeast is a modest sized bungalow and
the north eastern and north western elevations of the proposed extension will
be visible from the street scene.
The previous scheme was withdrawn during
processing. Windows have been arranged
in this scheme to minimise any potential overlooking to the property to the
northeast, proposed windows on the southwestern elevation, although some distance
from boundary will, in my view, present adverse impact.
With regard high level of supporting letters on this
application, it should be borne in mind that of the twenty one received, only
six are from residents within Swains Road.
In considering effect on amenities and character of
the area in general, application is within a large plot but is, in my view, out
of scale with the existing dwelling, will present adverse impact on visual
amenity of area and the design is not in keeping with the street scene or
original property. The proposal is
therefore contrary to policy.
The extension is clearly too large and does not
read as a supporting element to the main dwelling. The recommendation is for refusal.
With regard public speaking, opportunity has
been given for public speaking. The
same argument could be used by the objectors, Parish Council etc. Application should follow normal procedure.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to refuse 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 the other property in the area and other third parties
have been carefully considered. Whilst
there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the
land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse
is the proportional one 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 referred to in this report, it is considered proposal
conflicts with policies D1 and H7 in respect of scale and design and effect on
amenity of area.
RECOMMENDATION -
REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The proposal, by reason of its position, size,
design and external appearance, would be an intrusive development, out of
scale and character with the existing and prevailing pattern of development
in the locality, and have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the
locality and would also be contrary to policies D1 (Standards of Design) and
H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment Services