Contact your Parish Council

APPLICATION:       MA/09/1212         Date: 12 June 2009        Received: 13 July 2009

 

APPLICANT:	Mr & Mrs   Hewlett
LOCATION:	31, CORNER FARM ROAD, STAPLEHURST, TONBRIDGE, KENT, TN12 0PJ
PROPOSAL:	Planning application for erection of two storey side extension and single storey front extension as shown on drawing number 09026-01 Amendment B, block plan and site location plan received on 13/07/2009.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	3rd September 2009   Andrew Jolly

 

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

 

●  The decision is contrary to the views of the parish council

 

POLICIES

 

Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: H18

South East Plan 2009: BE1
Village Design Statement:  N/A

Government Policy:  PPS1 and PPS3.

Residential Extensions SPD

HISTORY

 

No planning history specifically relating to the application dwellinghouse.

 

Neighbouring history:

 

• 79/0875 - Two storey extension to provide playroom and kitchen with bedroom and study over – APPROVED/GRANTED on 18-Jul-1979 – location: 17 Corner Farm Road (terrace dwelling located directly opposite application site)

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

STAPLEHURST PARISH COUNCIL – Wishes to see the application refused for the following reason:

 

‘Councillors discussed this application and recommended REFUSAL because it was not a modest extension nor subservient to the existing dwellinghouse.  Councillors had concerns at the loss of three parking spaces with the overwhelming and intensification effect to the streetscene’.

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

No neighbour representations were received.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

 

The application site relates to a residential plot located within the village envelope and the Parish of Staplehurst.  The application site relates to an end of terrace two-storey dwellinghouse of no particular architectural merit.  The application dwelling is set back from Corner Farm Road by some 30 metres and access to the site is gained through a public parking area and via a public footpath running between two rows of terrace dwellings.

 

The rear garden of the application site is lined with closed boarded fencing at approximately 1.8 metres in height from ground level.  The rear garden area is approximately 11 metres in length.  Residential properties are located to the rear of the application site.  There is a separation distance of some 22 metres between the application dwellinghouse and the neighbouring dwelling located to the rear of the application site.

 

The surrounding area is predominately residential.  The immediate street scene is characterised by terrace dwellings.  The application dwelling sits at the end of a row of four dwellings.  Opposite is a further row of four dwellings.  Neither row fronts directly onto Corner Farm Road.  The wider street scene is characterised by two storey terrace and semi detached dwellings.  There has been various two storey side extensions permitted within proximity to the application site, for example, 17 Corner Farm Road directly opposite the application site.  The two storey side extension at 17 Corner Farm Road is similar in design to the extension proposed under this application in that the ridge of the extension is a continuation of the ridge of host dwelling.  Further, the extension projects some 3 metres from the side of 17 Corner Farm Road, 200mm wider than this proposal. 

 

PROPOSAL

 

This proposal involves the erection of a two storey side extension extending to the rear and a single storey front forming a porch.

 

The overall depth of the two storey side extension would be a 2.8 metre projection to the north.  The extension would be a continuation of the existing eaves and ridge, at some 4.8 metres and 6.2 metres in height, respectively.  The extension would project beyond the rear wall of the host dwelling by some 2 metres in distance.  The rear projecting element of the two storey extension would have a reduced ridge height at some 6 metres from ground level.  The eaves would remain the same as existing at some 4.8 metres. A gable end would face east into the rear garden of the application site. 

 

The single storey element would project some 1.8 metres from the front of the host dwelling and proposed extension.  The front extension would utilise a lean to roof at some 3.2 metres in height.  The front extension would be located some 9 metres from the front boundary of the application site.

 

POLICY ASSESSMENT

 

The specific policy under the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 relating to housing extensions within urban areas is Policy H18. This Policy requires new extensions:

 

• are of a scale and design that do not overwhelm or destroy the character of the existing property
• complement the street scene, adjacent existing buildings and the character of the area
• respect neighbouring amenity including privacy, daylight, sunlight and maintenance of pleasant outlook
• ensure adequate parking provision within the curtilage of the building

 

Scale and Design and Impact on the Street Scene

 

The proposed two storey side extension would significantly dominant the existing house as the roof would be a continuation of the existing roof.  Further, the extension would project 2.8 metres from the existing dwelling, only, which would be less than 50% the width of the existing dwelling.  As a result the additional width and mass of the proposed extension would not be significant and the extension would not appear unduly prominent within the streetscene.   A matching material condition would ensure sympathetic materials are used in construction.

 

The surrounding street scene is characterised by a mixture of dwelling designs with various degrees of separation between each dwelling at ground and first floor level. The proposed two storey side extension would abut the boundary shared with the neighbouring property, 33 Corner Farm Road, resulting in a loss of a gap between the application dwelling and the neighbouring dwelling. Importantly, the gaps between the houses at first floor within the immediate area are not wholly regular and a gap of some 5 metres would remain between the proposed side extension and the first floor flank wall of 33 Corner Farm Road.  This would comply with the MBC Residential Guidelines which states a ‘minimum Gap of 3m between properties’ should be maintained.

 

Further, the application dwelling is located at the end of a terrace row with a further terrace of four dwellings located opposite the application site.  Therefore, the proposal would not result in a ‘terracing’ effect out of keeping with the surrounding streetscene. 

 

In addition, a number of two storey side extensions are evident in the immediate street scene, most notably at 17 Corner Farm Road, located directly opposite the application site.  17 Corner Farm Road has a two storey side extension which projects some 3 metres from the flank wall and is of a similar design to the extension assessed under this proposal.  The proposed extension would not appear significantly incongruous within the existing street scene as a result. 

 

In terms of scale, the proposed rear element meets criterion one of policy H18 as the ridge of rear extension would be set below the ridge height of the host dwelling and the extension would not extend the full width of the house.  Subsequently, the bulk of the rear element would be significantly reduced ensuring a subservient form of development.  The rear element would not be visible on the street scene or in the surrounding area by virtue of its rear location. 

 

The proposed porch would be of a subservient scale to the original dwelling and the design of the porch, including the roof, would complement the existing house. The porch would not appear unduly prominent and incongruous within the street scene as it would not project excessively beyond the front building line ensuring the visual integrity of the terrace would remain.

 

Overall the design and scale of the proposal is acceptable and would not warrant a significant reason for refusal.

 

Amenity Considerations

 

Light

The proposed side extension would be located some 4.8 to 5.5 metres in distance from the dwellinghouse located to the north, 33 Corner Farm Road.  I consider this separation distance would be sufficient and the neighbouring property would not be significantly restricted to light as a result of the proposal.  Further, there are no windows in the facing flank wall at 33 Corner Farm Road.  

 

The proposed two storey element would be set in from the boundary shared with the adjoining property by some 3.2 metres.  This separation distance, coupled with the minimal rear projection would ensure the adjoining property would not be affected by a significant loss of light.  Further, there is a single storey flat roof rear extension at the adjoining which projects approximately 3 metres to the rear and as no opening facing the application site.

 

Importantly, this application accords with the current BRE light tests therefore the neighbouring dwellings would not suffer a significantly detrimental loss of light.

 

The porch, by virtue of its subordinate nature and minimal projection would not result in any significantly detrimental amenity issue to the neighbouring properties.

 

Privacy

The proposal would not afford direct views into the habitable room space of any neighbouring properties due to the angles and distances involved.  A degree of overlooking would be possible from the proposed west facing first floor rear windows into neighbouring gardens.  This overlooking would be largely mitigated by screening from existing extensions, close-boarded fencing and mature boundary vegetation. Importantly, overlooking would not be afforded into the private neighbouring amenity areas directly to the rear of the neighbouring houses.  Moreover, as first floor rear windows are evident on neighbouring properties it is considered there is already a mutual impact with regard to overlooking and the proposal would not cause any detrimental impact to this regard. 

 

Outlook

The proposal would not significantly effect to neighbouring amenity in terms of outlook as the proposal would be of a subordinate scale and suitably screened by existing extensions and boundary treatments.

 

Highway and parking Issues

 

The Parish Council has raised issues regarding the loss of off street parking at the application as a result of the proposal.  There would be two off road parking spaces provided to the front of the application dwelling and there is further parking within the small public car park to the northeast of the application. The application dwelling would provide five bedrooms as a result of the proposed extension and I consider the parking provision at the application site and surrounding would be adequate given the level of parking provided and due to the fact there are no highways parking restrictions within the immediate area.

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, I consider that the proposal accords with the development plan and Government policy and is acceptable in all other respects and is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the imposition of suitable safeguarding conditions.

 

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 building(s) 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 2000 and policy BE1 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 South East Plan 2009) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.