REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION – 5 DECEMBER 2003
|
1. |
TCP/08015/B P/01733/03 Parish/Name: Sandown Registration Date: 09/09/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983)
823593 Retention of dormer window on east elevation; raised
decking, summerhouse and proposed flag pole 7 Culver Way, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO368QG |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested by Team Leader as this is a finely balanced case that
requires Committee consideration.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application. The
processing of this application has taken eleven weeks to date, this being the
earliest Committee date following Team Leader’s visit to site and request.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This application relates to a detached bungalow which has good sized
front and rear gardens in a residential area of fairly low density. The natural ground level falls from north
east to south west. There is a mixture
of bungalows and two storey houses in the wider locality with bungalows to the
rear, two storey house to the south and bungalow to the north.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/8015 – Erection of bungalow and formation of means of vehicular
access. Conditional approval May 1961.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent is sought for retention of dormer window on east elevation;
raised decking, summerhouse and provision of a flag pole.
The dormer window projects 3.9 metres from just below ridge level and is
6 metres in width with two window openings in the rear (east) elevation and one
window opening in the side (southern) elevation, finished in plain tile
materials. It is understood that the
dormer window was constructed some two years ago.
Decking has been erected in the rear garden approximately 0.9m
off ground level. The floor area of the
decking extends 6.9 metres by 3.6 metres with steps to ground level. A small summerhouse that was previously
sited at ground level has been placed on top of the decking in the north east
corner. Two fencing panels have been
attached to the eastern side of the decking.
In addition, it is proposed to erect a flag pole on the decking to
display the Union Jack.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
This site is shown to be outside the development envelope boundary for
Sandown with the AONB boundary running through the site. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development
Plan are considered to be:
D1 – Standards of Design
H7 – Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties
C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer makes no comment.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Sandown Town Council raise no objection.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Four individual letters of objection have been received that can be
summarised as follows:
·
Property no longer conforms
to original planning permission in open-plan area; high hedges and fencing
panels corrupt open-plan aspect.
·
Restriction to privacy
intimidating and intrusive. Loss of
privacy, amenity.
Letter of representation refers to Officer report "With regard to
the summerhouse, it is elevated above ground level on top of the decking to
enable the applicants to benefit from the long range sea view". Also refers to recommended condition
relating to existing conifer screen on the northern boundary which is to be
maintained and retained at a minimum height of three metres.
Objector submits that this would be unfair since the leylandi conifers
deny objector the very views under consideration. Questions why one property should gain access to such views when
by doing so, the same property denies those views to another. The leylandi hedge has been the main reason
for contention between the two properties nos. 7 and 9 for 4 years; and with
recent legislation passed by the House of Lords objector was looking forward to
having the same hedge limited to two metres.
Objector concerned with precedence in relation to others having raised
summerhouses and to fact that neighbouring properties are rigorously nurturing
leylandi in order to restore level of privacy previously enjoyed by all.
Local Member has received many complaints regarding application and
requests site inspection. Advises of
neighbour's concern regarding impact of hedge height, pending legislation and
summerhouse.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Application has been generated as a result of enforcement
investigations.
The main consideration in respect of this application is whether the
development adversely impacts on the designated AONB, whether the dormer is of
appropriate scale, mass and design to the original property, whether it
adversely impacts on the character of the area and whether the decking and
summerhouse adversely impact on neighbouring privacy and amenity.
Neighbouring concern relating to obscure glazing of the windows and
dormers and the dormer being out of keeping with neighbouring property has been
considered. It would not be reasonable
to impose planning conditions to obscure glaze the windows as any impact is
considered minimal. The fact that
adjacent bungalows do not have dormer extensions is not sufficient
justification to withhold consent.
The dormer window, although large, is not out of keeping in terms of
scale and design to the original bungalow.
It is not visually prominent in the wider locality or adversely
impacting on the street scene. The
insertion of the three window openings does introduce bedroom accommodation and
an element of overlooking into neighbouring gardens but due to the distance
between these, I am firmly of the view that a refusal would not be sustained.
Turning to the decking, the main issue is whether having this raised
decking is adversely impacting on neighbouring privacy and amenity. When stood on the decking, there are far
reaching views to the sea and there is some limited overlooking into
neighbouring gardens. The high conifer screen to the north and to some degree a
further tree screen partly on the eastern boundary and the landscaping of the
garden to the south together with some internal fencing does offer some
protection of this overlooking. There
are also two panels of fencing on the eastern side of the decking that afford
some protection.
As the decking is already in place, its impact can be fully
assessed. It is a finely balanced
decision to assess whether the impact of this overlooking is detrimental to the
privacy and amenity of neighbouring property sufficient to justify withholding
consent.
It is accepted that there is some limited impact on neighbouring privacy
and amenity; however, given the distance between gardens and the screening that
exists and the oblique views and distances involved when looking in a
south-easterly direction, it is considered the impact does not present an
immediate intrusion and invasion of privacy.
On this basis the decking is not thought to be unreasonable as its
impact is not considered sufficiently serious to warrant refusal particularly
given the use of screening panels.
With regard the summerhouse, it is elevated above ground level on top of
the decking to enable the applicants to benefit from the long range sea
view. Although this elevated position
is somewhat unusual, it is not considered from a design point of view that it
is adversely impacts on the character of the area or in particular wider
landscape. Furthermore, the application site has the benefit of a dense conifer
hedge screen along the northern boundary which significantly reduces the
structure's potential impact. The flag
pole has been included as part of this overall development but would benefit
from 'deemed consent' under the Advertisement Regulations. The flag pole is therefore considered
acceptable.
In addition to the matters referred to above, during the processing of
the application attention has been drawn to two fence panels on the northern
boundary alleging they are over the permitted development height of two
metres. These have been measured to be
two metres high at the highest point of land and therefore would fall within
the limitations set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995. It has also
been brought to the Council's attention that fencing has been erected along the
frontage of the site in breach of an open-plan condition imposed on the
original planning permission. The
fencing is low level, ranch style stained green and has been assessed in terms
of its impact on the character and amenity value of the area. Properties on the eastern side of Culver Way
have a mix of low boundary treatments and the fencing is considered not to
detract from the visual amenity of the area.
The fact that the development has enabled long range sea views is a
factual interpretation of the siting.
Concern relating to precedence is noted but each case would be treated
on its merit. Overriding issue is
whether the impact on neighbouring privacy and amenity is sufficient to justify
withholding consent.
With regards proposed Hedgerow legislation, the final detail of such
legislation is not yet known but it is likely to be introduced next year. Prior to the introduction of any such legislation
I am advised by Legal Services that Members should consider any potential
conflict between planning and the proposed Hedgerow legislation as part of
their consideration under Human Rights legislation, in that following a site
inspection would the imposition of a condition requiring the retention of the
hedgerow at a minimum height interfere to an unacceptable extent with the
peaceful enjoyment of the occupier of the neighbouring property, which would be
the likely test in any proceedings that might be brought under the new Hedgerow
regulations.
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 and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
In summary, the dormer window and flag pole are acceptable in accordance
with policy. The summerhouse and
decking, because of their elevated position, do present an impact on
neighbouring privacy and amenity; the impact on neighbours and level of
objection has been carefully considered.
The recommendation is finely balanced but on the basis that the
intrusion into the immediate privacy is limited and taking into account PPG18
Enforcing Planning Control, it is considered that there is marginal weight in
favour of this development, subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions,
which it is felt do not unduly impinge on the living conditions of neighbouring
occupiers.
With regard the matter of fencing panels between the application site
and neighbouring property, this has been measured from the highest point of
land where the fence is sited and found to be within the two metre limits set
out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order
1995; there is no breach of planning control.
The fencing and gates erected at the front of the site are in breach of
a planning condition imposed on the original consent. The fencing however presents no adverse impact on the amenity and
character of the area. It would not be
expedient to pursue a retrospective application or action in respect of this
and I make my second recommendation accordingly.
1. RECOMMENDATION
- APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The fencing panels on the eastern side of the decking hereby approved
shall be retained and maintained hereafter. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of neighbouring property to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of
Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The existing conifer screen on the northern boundary shall be
maintained and retained at a minimum height of three metres. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of neighbouring property to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of
Design) of the isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
2. RECOMMENDATION
(a) To take no further action in respect of the two fencing panels on the
northern boundary which fall within the limitations of the Town and Country
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995.
(b) To accept that the fence and gates erected in breach of the open-plan condition are acceptable in accordance with policy and it would not be expedient to pursue further retrospective application or action in this regard.
Head of Planning Services