REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 30 JANUARY 2004

 

 

4.

TCP/25447/A   P/01423/03  Parish/Name:  Gurnard

Registration Date:  24/07/2003  -  Full Planning Permission

Officer:  Mr. J. Fletcher           Tel:  (01983) 823598

 

Alterations;  single storey extension to form living room;  alterations to roof to include conversion of & extension to roof space to provide additional living accommodation with balcony & balustrading on rear elevation at 1st floor level, (revised scheme)

39 Lower Church Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318JG

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

Application relates to a proposal which has been the subject of a recent refusal and, notwithstanding revisions to the scheme, this application continues to attract representations raising a number of issues thereby requiring consideration by the Committee.

 

PROCESSING INFORMATION

 

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken twenty six weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications due to Case Officer workload.

 

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

 

The dwelling is one of a pair of semi-detached single storey properties located on south western side of Lower Church Road.  Adjoining to south is a Grade II thatched cottage whilst adjoining to the north of the pair is a two storey traditional detached dwelling.  Area is characterised by a mixture of older and traditional style dwellings including one or two infill modern dwellings, most recent of which is a two and a half storey dwelling constructed on the Marsh Road frontage to the north west.

 

RELEVANT HISTORY

 

In July 2003 an application for a single storey extension to form living room which included alterations to the roof to include conversion of and extension to roof space to provide additional living accommodation with balcony and ballustrading on the rear elevation at first floor level refused for reasons of:

 

·         Height and mass along with relationship to adjoining neighbouring property represents intrusive addition, out of scale and character with semi-detached pair of dwellings therefore having an adverse effect on visual amenity of the locality.

 

·         Inclusion of external balcony in manner shown detrimental to amenities and privacy of the adjoining residential property.

 

·         Proposed increase in height of roof would represent an intrusive addition out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development when viewed from Lower Church Road.

 

 

 

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

 

A detailed consent sought for two storey extension to rear of property consisting of additional living room on ground floor extending vertically to provide additional bedroom and sun deck at first floor accessed via an internal staircase.  External walls to be extended on both sides partially enclosing the first floor sun deck.  Sun deck would be provided with ballustrading on its south

 

western facing elevation.  Extension to be finished with a gabled roof extending through to front edge of the sun deck and constructed in mixture of brick and render with shiplap boarding on upper floors, all under a shingled roof to match existing.

 

Height of extension measures 5.5 metres from ground to top of ridge which compares with the existing single storey height of 4.6 metres to ridge.  Extension will therefore stand at 0.9 metre higher than the existing ridge.

 

Application supported by a statement from the applicant which is summarised as follows:

 

A negotiating letter to applicant in respect of previous refused application suggested that lower roof line and enclosed balcony would be more acceptable and would maintain character of the cottage when viewed from the front.

 

Applicant states that he left the balcony exposed following discussions with neighbouring property owner and also because overlooking already occurs from existing balconies in the immediate vicinity.  Applicant points out that screening has now been provided to those balconies since that application was submitted.

 

Current application submitted on the basis of the advice given showing enclosed balcony and lower roof line.

 

Emphasis placed on there being no objection from the Environment Agency.

 

Applicant points out that the area generally is undergoing change evident by the erection of larger more modern looking properties in the area.

 

Applicant claims extension is in character with Marsh/Gurnard area and "allows my family a still small but comfortable property". 

 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

 

Relevant policies are as follows:                   

 

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

 

D1 - Standards of Design

 

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site  

 

H7 - Extensions and Alterations

 

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

 

Environment Agency has no objection in principle to the proposal.

 

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

 

Gurnard Parish Council object to the application on the following grounds:

 

"... the proposal still does not respect the visual integrity of the site and distinctiveness of the surrounding area.  That the height, mass and density is not compatible with the surrounding building.  That daylight, sunlight and open aspects of the development would be adversely affected and that the proposal would detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings." 

 

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

 

Two letters of objection received from the residents of Lower Church Road, one being from the immediate neighbouring property owner.  Points raised summarised as follows:

 

Proposal only represents a slight difference from the original refusal, observing that the roof shape is, if anything, bigger than that previously refused.

 

Claim that description is misleading.

 

Proposal is excessive in scale and height and would be totally out of keeping with existing symmetrical appearance of the pair of single storey properties.

 

Neighbouring property owner suggests that a number of trees will be affected by the proposal contrary to the information provided on the application form.

 

Reference made to ground condition issues, the area being subject to subsidence.  Concern being expressed that any extension may adversely affect structural integrity of the adjoining property.

 

Concern that proposal will result in loss of light and privacy and will have an overdominant effect.  Particular reference is made to the impact of the sun deck or balcony and the overlooking effect that this balcony may have on the adjoining property with particular reference to the conservatory within the adjoining garden.

 

Proposal would look out of place when viewed either up or down Lower Church Road.

 

Proposed extension out of character affecting the appearance of the adjoining Listed thatched cottage.

 

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

 

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

 

EVALUATION

 

Determining factor in considering application is whether or not a slight reduction in height and the enclosure of the balcony has sufficiently addressed the problems identified in the previous refused application.

 

The reduction in height is modest (0.35 m) but does represent the maximum reduction that could be achieved whilst still retaining first floor room height.

 

If the view is that the property is in principle capable of accepting a modest two storey extension to provide additional accommodation at first floor then the issue has to be whether or not this extension is of a sufficiently low profile to be compatible with the small scale character of the pair of semi-detached properties and therefore is not overdominant.  I consider the height increase relates to a relatively small area of the overall bungalow and this, coupled with use of sensitive materials (shiplap boarding at first floor and shingled roof) would create an extension which sits reasonably comfortably with the existing semi-detached pair. 

 

I also consider that the slight reduction assists in reducing the impact when viewed from Lower Church Road and represents a relatively modest interruption in the elongated ridge line and, if anything, assists in breaking up that ridge line.

 

In terms of the impact when viewed from the west (rear) the proposal cannot be seen from any public highway and therefore the greater material consideration in this respect is the impact it may have on the immediate neighbouring property.

 

The enclosing of the balcony will, in my opinion, overcome the potential for loss of privacy to the neighbouring property although some overlooking of that garden area will occur but in a south westerly direction only, with all other directions being screened by the extension of the side walls.  If Members are mindful to approve the application, however, I would suggest a condition requiring some obscure screening to the ballustrading which should further reduce the potential for overlooking.

 

The final issue therefore is whether or not the creation of an enclosed balcony which has increased the scale of the extension by introducing a gable roof finish as opposed to a cropped gable as was refused, represents a scale of extension which is unacceptable and could be deemed to be intrusive.

 

The design reasons for increasing the scale, therefore reducing the potential for overlooking are acknowledged.  However, whilst the increase in scale will have an impact on the neighbour, I do not consider this would be to a degree which would warrant a refusal of the application.  The extension itself is approximately 2.4 metres off the party boundary which I consider represents a sufficient gap to overcome the concerns being expressed by the neighbouring property owner.

 

With regard to concerns regarding ground conditions the issue of foundation details will be a matter to be considered under the Building Regulations.  In any event whilst ground conditions in the area may require robust foundation designs there is no evidence to suggest that ground conditions are not capable of supporting this extension.  Advice in PPG14 would suggest that it would be unreasonable to require at the planning stage a structural engineer's report in respect of this relatively modest extension.        

 

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 the other property 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 the material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the extension now proposed has addressed the previous reasons for refusal and the resultant development in terms of its visual impact and affect on adjoining properties is acceptable and the proposal does not conflict with the policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

                        RECOMMENDATION   -   APPROVAL (Revised plans) 

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

1

Time limit - full   -   A10

 

2

The materials to be used in the  construction  of  the external surfaces of the alterations hereby  permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

3

No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

4

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed within the extension hereby approved.

 

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

5

Development shall not begin until details of opaque screening to the balcony ballustrading to protect the privacy of the neighbours have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The balcony shall not be brought into use until the works of screening have been carried out in accordance with the approved details and the screening shall be retained hereafter.

 

Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services