REPORT OF HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES –
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER 2004
|
TCP/26494 – P/01647/04 |
Demolition of conservatory; alterations and single/two
storey extension to provide additional living accommodation (revised plans);
56 School Crescent, Godshill, Ventnor. |
Officer: Mr Hougham, Development
Control Manager Tel: (01983) 825576
BACKGROUND
Application, submitted
in early August 2004, to construct an one/two storey extension at the rear of
this semi-detached property.
There were several
letters of objection from local residents although the local Parish Council
expressed a different view.
Case Officer and her
Team Leader decided that permission should be refused under the delegated
procedure on the grounds that the proposed addition would be intrusive, out of
scale and character with the property and neighbouring properties and would be
likely to have an adverse effect on the amenities currently enjoyed by the
occupants of neighbouring and nearby properties.
Notwithstanding the
local opposition to the application because the local Parish Council raised no
objection the present delegation arrangements meant it was necessary to consult
with the local Ward Member and the Chairman of the Development Control
Committee before issuing the Decision Notice.
Local Member indicated
that he was not satisfied with the proposal to deal with the application under
the delegated procedure and wanted the matter considered by the Development
Control Committee for reasons specified in the earlier report(s).
Application was
reported to meeting held 26 October 2004 with a recommendation to refuse
permission. Members decided to defer consideration so that they could visit the
site before determining the application.
Site visit took place
on the 5 November 2004 and at the meeting that was convened immediately after
this visit Members decided that in their view a one/two storey extension at the
rear of this property was unlikely to have a seriously detrimental effect on
the occupants of neighbouring or nearby residential properties sufficient to
warrant refusing planning permission.
Consensus view was
that there was some concerns about the scale and mass of the proposed extension
and the proposed fenestration which may have resulted in some overlooking of
neighbouring properties and Members instructed the Development Control Manager
to negotiate with the applicant’s agent to achieve certain amendments
whereupon, in their view, the application could then be conditionally approved
without further reference to Committee.
Development Control
Manager carried out this instruction by sending a letter to the applicant’s
agent which was copied to the Chairman of this Committee and the Local Member.
Revised plans have now
been received from the applicant’s agent which address virtually all the issues
highlighted by the Development Control Manager on behalf of the Committee and
have been appended to this report.
Committee decision to
effectively “approve” this application has caused a considerable concern locally
with the owner/occupier of one neighbouring property expressing serious
misgivings about the way that this application has been handled in
correspondence with the Development Control Manager.
In the circumstances,
following consultation with both the Chairman of the Committee and the Head of
Planning Services, it was decided that the matter should be reported back to
the Development Control Committee. The following report is the one that was
considered by Members at the meeting held on 5 November 2004 with inserts in
bold type to expand and provide latest information.
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Local
member, Councilor David Yates, has requested the application go to the
Development Control Committee, for the following reason:
The decision to recommend this application (the only one of many others
that is supported by the Parish Council) for refusal is inconsistent with
previous decisions and justifies a more in depth examination.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is a
minor application, the processing of which has taken almost 19
weeks. The application has exceeded the prescribed eight week period due to
the local Member requesting consideration by the Committee, the deferment for a
site visit and the further deferment to negotiate amendments to the
application.
LOCATION AND
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Application
relates to a semi detached property in a built up area, located within the
development envelope of Godshill. On the eastern side of School Crescent,
number 56 is one of a group of properties in a circular formation whose amenity
areas back on to each other. The property is sited within a long narrow plot
with 1.7m (approx) panel fencing on each boundary.
RELEVANT
HISTORY
None
DETAILS OF
THE APPLICATION
Consent is
sought to demolish the existing conservatory on the rear elevation to be
replaced with alterations, single/ two storey extension with a projection in
total of 6.3m off the existing rear elevation. The two storey element of this
extension proposes a 3.4m depth. and 5.8m width setting the east and west
elevations in close proximity to the site boundaries. The single storey element
projects at 2.9m, with an inset off the western elevation reducing width to
5.2m. Accommodation to be provided is family/dining room, and extended bedroom
with en-suite. The proposal is designed with matching materials and a lower
ridge than the existing dwelling.
Development
Control Manager sent a letter to the applicant's agent after the site visit in
which he said:
I have been
instructed to ask you and your client to consider amending the application by
changing the design of the roof over the two storey element to a hipped roof to
be constructed at an identical (or very similar) angle to the main rood on the
existing building and to re-examine and re-evaluate your client's requirements
in terms of window openings on the proposed extended side elevation in terms of
number, size, type of glazing and ability to open.
Applicant's
agent has now submitted revised plans which incorporate a hipped roof (as
requested) over the two storey element of the proposed extension and also
eliminates all openings above ground floor level in the side elevation of the
proposed extension but aims to retain a proposed first floor bathroom window in
the existing side elevation which will be glazed with obscure glass and bottom
hung so as to avoid any overlooking of neighbouring properties.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
The site is
located within the Development Envelope of Godshill
Relevant
policies of the Unitary Development Plan are:
S6 All development expected to be of a high standard of design
G4 General Locational Criteria for Development
D1 Standards of Design
H7 Extension and Alteration of Existing
Properties
Supplementary Planning Guidance-
Isle of Wight Council - Extending Your Home
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
National Air
Traffic Services raise no safeguarding objection to the proposal
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Godshill
Parish Council recommends approval of this proposal as it is felt the proposals are not detrimental to the surrounding
area.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
There are
seven letters of objection and comment that can be summarized as follows;
·
Extension not in keeping with properties in the
surrounding area.
In the
circumstances a decision has been taken to notify the owner/occupiers of
neighbouring and nearby residential properties who had previously objected to
the application. They have been advised about the decision taken by Members
following the site visit and invited to inspect the revised drawings and, if
they wish, make a further representation on the application. Any further
comments will be reported to Members in the Schedule of Late Representations.
CRIME AND
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and
disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
The main
considerations for the proposal are the design and scale of the extension in
relation to the existing dwelling, the impact on the adjoining semi-detached
property and other surrounding properties as well as general amenity of
the area.
The proposal
presents a substantial addition to the existing dwelling, nearly doubling the
footprint. It is acknowledged that half the increased footprint would only be
at single storey, however in consideration of the overall scale and massing
the proposal is viewed to be contrary to S6, Policy G4 and Policy D1 as the
extension is not of appropriate scale, or of a mass compatible with the
existing or surrounding buildings.
The
projection of the two storey extension would present an overbearing and
unacceptable mass in very close proximity to the shared boundary
creating a loss of outlook to the adjoining semi, and causing an
unacceptable loss of light due to the orientation of the property resulting
in a proposal contrary to Policy H7 as it is considered not to be of
appropriate scale to the property presenting an excessive detrimental impact on
the neighbouring property. The extension is also contrary to the advice
contained within the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Extending Your
Home' particularly in consideration of loss of daylight and aspect to
neighbouring properties.
With regard
party concern relating to land ownership, Certificate of ownership has been
submitted with the application.
Negotiations
to overcome the above concerns were entered into with the applicant and agent
with the option to submit revised plans for consideration. The applicant has
requested that the application be determined in its current form.
In summary,
there have been seven letters of objection on this application with one of
support form the Parish Council considered. The letter of support does not
outweigh the policy considerations referred to above.
Officers
have consistently opposed such a large extension to a small semi-detached
property particularly when this includes a substantial two storey element which
will impact upon the level of amenity currently enjoyed by the occupants of
two, possibly three, similar properties that back onto the side boundary of the
application site but particularly the owner/occupiers of the neighbouring
semi-detached property (No. 54) who, in my view, are likely to suffer a more
serious loss of amenity due to the two storey element of the proposed building
which projects some 3.40 metres from the rear wall of the original
dwellinghouse within "inches" of the shared boundary.
Notwithstanding
the officers recommendation the consensus view of Members was that subject to
amendments to the design of the proposed extension in terms of the roof shape
and the fenestration arrangements the application could be approved. The agent
has indicated in a response that his client is willing to make these amendments
and provided a set of revised drawings which, in my view, accord with the
Members requirements.
Officers are
not able to support any decision to grant approval in this particular case and
consequently we maintain a recommendation to refuse permission.
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 proportional to the legitimate
aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION
FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given
due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations, I consider
the proposal would be an intrusive and unneighbourly addition, out of scale in
relation to the existing and surrounding dwellings and presents a detrimental
impact on the adjoining semi detached property and general amenities of the
area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy.
RECOMMENDATION
– REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
UR1 |
The proposed rear extension, by reason of overall
scale, mass and position close to the boundaries, would be intrusive and an
unneighbourly addition, out of scale and character with this and surrounding
dwellings, as well as having a serious and adverse effect on the amenities
enjoyed by occupants of the neighbouring properties causing loss of outlook,
having an overbearing impact and would be contrary to Policies S6 (Be of A
High Standard of Design), G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) D1
(Standards of Design), and Policy H7 (Extension and alteration of Existing
Properties) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and advice
contained within the Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Extending Your
Home.' |
CHRIS
HOUGHAM
Development Control Manager