Contact your Parish Council

APPLICATION:        MA/11/0757              Date: 9 May 2011      Received: 11 May 2011

 

APPLICANT:	Mr & Mrs I  Adams
LOCATION:	151, HEATH ROAD, BARMING, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME16 9HJ
PARISH:	Barming
PROPOSAL:	Erection of a single storey rear extension as shown on plan numbers 1449/HRB/01, 1449/HRB/02, 1449/HRB/03, 1449/HRB/04, 1449/HRB/05, 1449/HRB/06, 1449/HRB/07, 1449/HRB/08, 1449/HRB/09, site location plan, supporting statement and application form received 11th May 2011.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	21st July 2011   Kevin Hope

 

The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:

 

      ●  it is contrary to views expressed by Barming Parish Council

 

1.      POLICIES

 

• Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000:  H18
• South East Plan 2009: BE1, CC1, CC6

·         Government Policy:  PPS1, PPS3

• Other: MBC Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2009

 

2.      HISTORY

 

No recent planning history at this address applicable to this application

 

3.           CONSULTATIONS

 

·       Parish Council: Barming Parish Council - Wish to see the application refused and wish to see it reported to the planning committee for the following reasons:-

 

“The proposed study is outside of the existing building line, which brings the proposed development into close proximity of the neighbouring property.  The extension is too large with the study, which overdominates the existing property”.

 

4.      REPRESENTATIONS

 

• No neighbour representations have been received

 

5.      CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1       Site Description

 

5.1.1   The application site is sited within the parish of Barming and comprises a rectangular shaped residential plot occupied by a two storey detached dwelling. The property is set back from the road by approximately 8.5m and is set on a lower level by approximately 1m.  There is also a small area of lawn with a large driveway providing parking provision for at least two vehicles.  In addition to this, the property has an integral garage providing an additional car parking space. To the rear, the property has a large rear garden extending approximately 36.5m in length and measuring approximately 12m in width.  This is largely laid to lawn with a raised timber decking area sited immediately to the rear of the dwelling.  The rear garden is bordered by a range of boundary treatments including 2m high close boarded fencing to the eastern boundary and  1.5m high close boarded fencing to the southern boundary. The west facing boundary is bordered by 1.8m close boarded fencing which extends approximately 7.5m from the rear of the dwelling with the remainder of the boundary bordered by 0.9m high wire mesh fencing.  There are also a number of trees within the rear garden located approximately 19m from the rear elevation of the dwelling.

 

5.1.2  The surrounding streetscene to the south side of Heath Road comprises a mix of detached and semi detached properties of a similar age and scale to the application dwelling. These properties comprise three main property types although the immediate neighbouring property, 153 Heath Road has previously been extended to the front.  Although the pattern of development is consistent within this streetscene, the building line is irregular due to the direction of Heath Road.  By virtue of this, the neighbouring property to the east, 149, is set back a further 9m and is inline with the rear elevation of the application dwelling.

 

5.2    Proposal

 

5.2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension. This would comprise two components, the first being the addition of a dining room and family room to the rear of the dwelling.  This section of the extension would measure approximately 8.7m in width and would project approximately 5.1m from the existing rear elevation.  The second being the addition of a study projecting a further 4.8m beyond the rear elevation of the proposed dining room. The proposed study would measure approximately 3.1m in width and would be accessed via the proposed dining room.  The extension would have a flat roof design and would incorporate two rooflights.  The eaves height and overall height of the extension would measure approximately 2.5m and 3m respectively.

 

5.2.2 The proposed dining room and family room addition would be in line with the existing side elevations of the dwelling and would maintain a distance of approximately 1.5m to the eastern and western boundaries.  The rearmost element of the proposed extension comprising the proposed study would be sited adjacent to the eastern boundary. This would create a small pathway providing side access to the extension.

 

5.3    Principle of Development

 

5.3.1  In principle, household extensions are considered acceptable within the urban area of Maidstone subject to its scale, design and its impact upon the surrounding area. This is outlined within policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and the Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2009 as shown below:-

 

Policy H18:-“EXTENSIONS AND ADDITONS TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERITES WILL BE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT THE PROPOSAL:

 

(1)  IS OF A SCALE AND DESIGN WHICH DOES NOT OVERWHELM OR DESTROY THE CHARACTER OF THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY; AND

 

(1)  WILL COMPLEMENT THE STREET SCENE AND ADJACENT EXISTING BUILDINGS AND THE CHARACTER OR THE AREA; AND

 

(2)  WILL RESPECT THE AMENITIES OF ADJOINING RESIDENTS REGARDING PRIVACY, DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT AND MAINTAINANCE OF A PLEASANT OUTLOOK; AND

 

(3)  ENSURES THAT ADEQUATE CAR PARKING PROVISION WITHIN THE CURTILAG OF THE DWELLING IS PROVIDED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED CAR PARKING STANDARDS.

 

5.3.2  The Residential Extensions SPD also provides guidance on rear extensions within paragraphs 4.8 to 4.13.  This document states that:-

 

·       “on detached houses situated close to a neighbouring property, extensions should generally extend no more than 4 metres from the rear elevation”.

 

·       “The eaves height of single storey extensions within 2 metres of a boundary should be no more than 3 metres above the existing ground level”.

 

·       “To protect against overlooking, the side wall facing a neighbour should not normally contain a window unless it maintained privacy by, for example, containing obscure glazing or being non-opening”.

 

5.3.3  I will consider these points under sections 5.4 and 5.5 below.

5.4    Visual Impact and Design

 

5.4.1 With regard to the impact of the development upon the existing dwelling, the proposed rear extension would project approximately 9.9m from the existing rear elevation overall, I note that the MBC Residential Extensions SPD states that rear extension should not project more than 4m from the existing rear elevation for a property of this type. However, I consider in this case that by virtue of the single storey scale of the proposal and the existing footprint of the dwelling the proposed extension would not overwhelm the existing dwelling or result in any significant harm to its character or appearance.  Although, the parish council have raised concerns with regard to the dominance of the proposed study element of the extension, I consider that due to its modest width of 3.1m, this would not appear significantly dominant or overwhelming upon the existing dwelling.

 

5.4.2 It is also stated within the application details that in keeping external materials would be used in the construction of the development. However, to secure this, a matching materials condition shall be imposed which would further reduce the visual impact of the proposed development.  Overall, although I recognise that the proposed extension would represent a substantial increase in the floorspace of the host property, I consider that its scale and design would not cause any significant harm to the appearance or character of the existing dwelling. I therefore consider that this proposal is in accordance with criterion (1) of policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and the guidance within the Residential Extensions SPD 2009.

 

5.4.3  With regard to its impact upon the streetscene, the proposed extension may be partially visible from the streetscene by virtue of a distance of approximately 3m between the application dwelling and the neighbouring property to the east, 149.  However, due to the single storey scale of the proposed extension, it’s siting to the rear of the dwelling and its distance from the road of approximately 16m, I consider that there would be no significant impact upon the character or appearance of the Heath Road to the front.

 

5.4.4  In terms of the impact upon the pattern of development, whilst I acknowledge that the rearmost element of the extension only would not maintain a gap to the eastern boundary, I consider that by virtue of the maintained gap of 1.5m to the foremost section of the extension together with the siting of the neighbouring dwelling, 149, approximately 1.5m from the eastern boundary of the site, the extension would not result in any significant harm to the spacing between dwellings in this street.  In addition, although the extension would have a significant overall projection of approximately 9.9m, this would be in line with the rearmost element of the neighbouring property, 149 due to its set back location and in my opinion, would not form a significantly visually dominant feature within this area at odds with the existing pattern of development. Due to the single storey scale of the proposed extension, I consider that this development would not result in a terraced appearance within this street.

 

5.4.5  Overall, I consider that this proposal is in accordance with criterion (2) of policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and the guidance contained within the Residential Extensions SPD 2009.

 

5.5    Neighbouring Amenity

 

5.5.1 In terms of the impact of the development upon neighbouring amenity, due to the spacing between the extension and the neighbouring properties, 149 and 153 of approximately 1.5m and 3m respectively, together with the single storey scale of the proposed extension, I consider that a light test is not necessary and the proposed extension would not result in a significant loss of light to either neighbouring property. Similarly, by virtue of this scale and siting the proposed extension would not result in any detrimental overshadowing or impact upon the outlook of either neighbouring property.

 

5.5.2 With regard to privacy, I note that the extension would include two windows within the east facing elevation.  However, these windows would be significantly screened by the existing 2m high boundary fencing and would not result in any significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of 149.  In addition, the proposed windows would be non-opening which would further support this view.  With regard to the privacy of 153, it is noted that an external door is proposed within the west facing elevation of the extension.  However, this would be largely screened by the existing 1.8m high close boarded boundary fencing and I consider that this would not result in a significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of 153. The proposed projecting study section of the extension would also include two windows within the west facing elevation. However, this would not result in a loss of privacy to the occupiers of 153 due to the distance of approximately 10m between the west elevation and 153 together with the existing boundary fencing. As such, I consider overall that this proposal would not result in a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of 149 and 153.

 

5.5.3 Due to its siting, the proposed extension would not have an impact upon the amenity of any other neighbouring property including a loss of light, outlook, privacy or overshadowing. Therefore this proposal is in accordance with criterion (3) of policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and the guidance contained within the Residential Extensions SPD 2009.

 

5.6    Highways

 

5.6.1  In terms of the impact upon parking, the location of the proposed rear elevation is such that it would not encroach on to the existing parking area. As such, parking provision for at least three vehicles would be retained within the front driveway and integral garage of the application dwelling. Therefore this proposal is in accordance with criterion (4) of policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000.

 

5.7    Landscaping

 

5.7.1  This application does not include the provision of a landscaping scheme as part of this proposal. However, due to the existing soft landscaping within the rear garden of the site, I do not consider this to be a significant issue in this case.

 

5.7.2  As previously discussed within paragraph 5.1.1, there are a number of established trees and shrubs located across the garden towards the rear of the site.  These trees and shrubs are located in excess of 9m from the rearmost part of the proposed extension and I am confident that there will be no significant detrimental harm to the trees as a result of this development.

 

6.           CONCLUSION

 

6.1    In conclusion, I consider that the proposal is therefore acceptable with regard to the relevant provisions of the development plan and other material considerations such as are relevant.  I therefore recommend conditional approval of the application on this basis.

 

7.           RECOMMENDATION

 

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:     

 

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission;

Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.   The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the rear extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance with policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and policies BE1, CC1 and CC6 of the South East Plan 2009.

3.   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Plan numbers 1449/HRB/01, 1449/HRB/02, 1449/HRB/03, 1449/HRB/04, 1449/HRB/05, 1449/HRB/06, 1449/HRB/07, 1449/HRB/08, 1449/HRB/09, site location plan, supporting statement and application form received 11th May 2011.

Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is maintained and to prevent harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and policies BE1, CC1 and CC6 of the South East Plan 2009.

 

 

The proposed development, subject to the conditions stated, is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan (Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the South East Plan 2009) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.