REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 5 JULY 2002

Representations

Highway Engineer makes no comment.

A total of 12 letters raising relevant planning issues have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal with matters raised summarised below;

The size and design of the proposed extension would be out of character with the existing building.

The extension would infill the open space between the buildings and would be out of character with the other properties on this part of Carisbrooke estate.

The design of the building is considered to be totally different to any other property in the area.

Proximity of extension to adjacent property would result in loss of light and amenity.

Changes in ground level may result in instability and would require construction of a retaining wall.

Area is already congested with traffic and pinch points and traffic calming have been installed in the locality.

Additional windows would result in increased overlooking and loss of privacy to other properties.

Concern expressed regarding safety of residents and particularly children whilst extension is constructed in close proximity to boundary.

Members are advised that comments have been received regarding problems as a result of construction traffic, storage of materials and possible access to the rear of the property and the need to obtain access over other people's land in order to construct the extension and whilst these concerns are noted, they are not considered to be matters which can properly be assessed as part of the planning application and would be for agreement between owners of properties in the area.

Evaluation

This application relates to a detached two storey dwelling situated on the northern side of Fieldfare Road which, is one of the through roads on the Carisbrooke Park estate which consist of relatively modern residential development, with a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties some of which front on to Fieldfare Road whilst some have access from spur roads and culs-de-sac.

The application property is a detached two storey dwelling with buff brick elevations under a gabled tiled roof. The front elevation also has a small gable porch with additional projecting gables over the first floor windows in the main roof. There is a detached double garage at the front of the property which is shared between the application property and the adjoining dwelling. The rear boundary backs on to residential properties fronting The Finches and there is vehicular and pedestrian access to the rear of those properties which abuts the rear boundary of the site.

The application details show construction of a two storey extension at the eastern end of the building which would be partially screened from the road frontage by the existing detached garage. The extension would measure approximately 2.7 metres in width by 5.6 metres in depth and would provide a dining room extension at ground floor level with an additional bedroom at first floor. The eastern side boundary is splayed such that the rear corner of the extension would almost touch the existing boundary whereas there would be a gap of approximately 1.4 metres at the front corner.

Following negotiations, revised plans have been submitted which have shown the front elevation of the extension stepped back from the front of the main house by approximately 500 mm which has also resulted in a consequent step in the front roofline and a reduction in the ridge level of the extension. This would also allow a gap between the proposed extension and the existing garage sufficient to allow access for repairs and maintenance around the property. The design of the proposed extension has been simplified and would be visually subservient to the main dwelling when viewed from the front elevation.

These amendments improve the relationship between the extension and the original building. The design introduces a stringcourse between ground and first floors and window proportions at first floor level reflect those of the application dwelling and other dwellings fronting Fieldfare Road. Use of appropriate materials will in my opinion result in an extension to the existing dwelling which is acceptable in size and design terms, particularly remembering that the ground floor element is screened from the public highway by the garage block. As far as the space between dwellings is concerned, this would be greater than the frontage gap between numbers 30 and 28, and similar to that between no. 28 and 24. I can see no reason based on the design of the extension, appearance in the street scene or loss of space between buildings to warrant refusal of the application.

The extension proposed will immediately adjoin at one point the boundary between the application site and no. 26 Fieldfare Road. This adjoining property is approximately one metre from the boundary with a glazed door in the side elevation serving a short passageway leading to the kitchen. Occupier has indicated that this door is often left open to increase light to the kitchen but the main kitchen window is on the rear elevation of the property overlooking the rear garden. Whilst there would be some loss of daylight and possibly sunlight to the side area of the property immediately adjacent to the proposed extension, this has been assessed by Officers and is not considered to be so serious as to warrant refusal of the application.

The Case Officer has inspected the boundary between numbers 28 and 26 Fieldfare Road and has discussed the construction issues involved with the applicant's agent. The application site is about 300 to 400 mm higher than the height of the adjoining property and concern was expressed regarding stability of the site and the effect of the proposed extension on the objector's property. Any extension or other construction on the site would require ground to be dug out and proper foundations to be installed. In principle, any difficulties of stability could be overcome as the problem appears to be due to the loose nature of topsoil and gravel on the adjoining property and the condition of the fencing. Any construction will have to comply with Building Regulations and details of boundary treatment can be covered by condition on any planning permission. Number 4 of the recommended conditions addresses this issue.

Traffic calming is in place in Fieldfare Road and comments are made regarding the amount of traffic using that highway. However, the proposal is for an extension to a dwelling providing dining room and bedroom facilities. It is Officer's view that such an extension is not likely to result in increased traffic either to or from the dwelling and therefore there are no highways issues relative to this application which would warrant refusal.

The windows proposed at the rear of the property which may result in additional overlooking can only be the first floor bedroom. Bearing in mind the nature of the surrounding development, and the number of first floor rear windows already in the vicinity, a refusal on the grounds of loss of privacy and amenity from this one additional first floor window could not in my opinion be justified.

Concerns regarding safety during construction and construction traffic are not relevant to the determination of the planning application. They are addressed by other legislation including Highways, Health and Safety and also British Standards governing the conduct of building sites.

In the final analysis the determining factors are considered to be whether the location, size and design of the proposed extension are considered to be acceptable in relation to the appearance of the existing building and the character of the estate as a whole, together with the effect of the proposed extension on the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties, with particular reference to the proximity of the immediately adjoining property to the east.

As indicated above, the revised plans show the extension reduced in height and stepped back from the front elevation of the property together with a simplification of the roof design which would now be visually subservient to the main dwelling and is considered acceptable in principle and similar to other two storey extensions which have been approved previously in the area. Whilst it is acknowledged that the extension would be close to the side boundary and would partially infill the open space between the application property and the existing dwelling to the east, the overall spacing between the properties would not be dissimilar to others within the estate and would not therefore be considered unduly visually intrusive or out of character in the locality.

Whilst the extension would be relatively close to the adjoining property, there are no windows in the side elevation of the adjoining property which would be directly affected by loss of daylight or sunlight and the new windows in the proposed extension would not overlook adjoining properties to a significantly greater extent than that which already exists from first floor windows within the property and others nearby.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the revised details showing the proposed extension reduced in size and simplified in design would be visually acceptable in this location and would not have undue adverse effect on the amenities of the residents of nearby properties to an extent which would warrant refusal of the application. On balance the revised plans are considered acceptable in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies D1 and H7 and I therefore recommend accordingly.

                       Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons: