Contact your Parish Council

APPLICATION:       MA/14/0284         Date: 1 February 2014   Received: 20 February 2014

 

APPLICANT:	Mr & Mrs A  Colegate
LOCATION:	334, UPPER FANT ROAD, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME16 8DD
PARISH:	Maidstone
PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey detached annexe as shown on site location plan received 20/02/14 and drawing no. 774 774a received 07/04/14.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	12th June 2014   Kathryn Altieri

 

 address policies under Considerations

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

 

    ●    Councillor Paine has requested it be reported for the reason set out in the report.

 

1. 0    POLICIES

 

●    Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: H18

●    Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Extensions

●    Government Policy: National Planning Policy Framework

●    National Planning Practice Guidance

●    Draft Local Plan Policy: DM8

 

1. 0    RELEVANT HISTORY

 

●    MA/96/0170 - Erection of front extension – approved/granted with conditions

 

2. 0    CONSULTATIONS

 

3.1     Councillor Paine: Requested application to be reported to Planning Committee;

 

3.1.1  “Due to local concern about the size and siting of the structure, as well as the significant loss of garden space, resulting in, cumulatively, a cramped form of development.”

 

3. 0    REPRESENTATIONS

 

4.1     3 neighbouring properties (332, 336 & 338 Upper Fant Road) have made 5 representations objecting to the following;

 

-        Over development of private garden

-        New dwelling inappropriately located

-        Out of keeping with area

-        Loss of privacy and outlook

-        Overbearing

-        Better alternative solutions

 

4. 0    CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1    Site description

 

5.1.1  334 Upper Fant Road is an end of terrace property located close to the junction with Pope Street.  The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, made up of varying styles of property; and to the rear of the site there are garden allotments.  The application site does fall within the defined urban area as shown by the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 (MBWLP).

 

5.2    Background information

 

5.2.1  The original plan submitted showed a larger annexe building.  After further negotiations, based on my concern over the potential oppressive nature of the proposal on the neighbours, an amended scheme has been submitted.  The applicant has reduced the unit by 2.5m in length; 200mm in height; and has set the building 1m away from each shared boundary.

 

 

5.3    Proposal

 

5.3.1  The proposal is for the erection of a detached, single storey annexe in the rear garden of the property.  The annexe would measure some 10m in length and some 4.5m in width; and given the topography of the land, the flat roofed building would stand approximately 2.4m in height (western end – closest to house) up to 2.7m in height.  The building would be finished in roughcast render.  In terms of accommodation, the annexe would provide a bedroom, bathroom and lounge area.

 

5.4    Relevant policy and guidance

 

5.4.1  The most relevant policy relating to development of this type in the urban area is policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.  The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Extensions is also of relevance.  I will consider the proposal against the criteria set out in this policy and guidance.

 

5.5    Design, siting and appearance

 

5.5.1  Given the proposal’s single storey nature and separation from the main house, I am satisfied that it would not overwhelm or destroy the character of the existing property.  Furthermore, the proposal (because of its modest scale and location) would not appear over dominant, visually harmful, or out of context when viewed from any public vantage point.  I am therefore satisfied that the annexe would not significantly affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area, enough to justify refusal.

 

5.5.2  I would also like to add that a building of this size (albeit not for this use), a marginal 0.2m lower in height, could be built under the property’s permitted development rights without the need for planning permission.

 

5.6    Residential amenity

 

5.6.1  The proposal, because of its reasonable length, low eaves height and the 1m set-in from both shared boundaries, would not appear oppressive to either neighbour when using their immediate garden space.  I am also satisfied that the proposal would not result in a significant loss of privacy to the immediate garden space of 332 & 336 Upper Fant Road.  Indeed, there is 1.8m high close boarded fencing for boundary treatment along both sides; and whilst the boundary with 336 is not all close boarded fencing, their immediate garden space is screened and further privacy could be easily maintained by erecting fencing up to 2m in height without the need for planning permission.  I am also of the view that the proposal, because of its modest scale and location, would not overwhelm or result in a significant loss of light, privacy or outlook to the internal living accommodation of any neighbouring property.

 

5.6.2  Whilst there may be a certain lack of privacy for the occupants of the annexe, particularly the lounge area, this is their choice and I raise no objection on this issue. 

 

5.6.3  The Council has no set amenity space standards and each application must be judged on its own merits.  In this case, the applicant’s rear garden measures approximately 30m in length and covers an area of some 205m².  The proposed annexe covers an area of 45m² and the newly built shed at the bottom of the garden (built under the property’s permitted development) has a footprint of some 17.6m².  This leaves more than 140m² of garden area, and a separation distance between the two buildings of some 15m.  With this considered, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not result in a significant loss of garden space, or a cramped form of development, and the occupants amenity would be maintained. 

 

5.6.4  Once the annexe and shed are completed, buildings will occupy less than 30% of the rear garden area.  It should be noted that under the property’s permitted development rights, up to 50% of the total area of curtilage can be occupied by buildings before planning permission would be required; and the total area of the proposed annexe and the new shed falls noticeably short of this percentage.

 

5.6.5  I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not result a significant loss of residential amenity for any neighbour or the future occupants.

 

5.7    Highway safety implications

 

5.7.1  The proposal, because of its location and nature, would not have a significant impact upon parking provision or highway safety.

 

5.8    Other considerations

 

5.8.1  Given the proposal’s location and the proximity to the main house, together with its internal layout, I am satisfied that this building will be used as an annexe to 334 Upper Fant Road and not a separate self contained unit.  However, I will impose the relevant occupancy condition to ensure this.

 

6.0    CONCLUSION

 

6.1     The issues raised by Councillor Paine and the neighbours have been fully considered in the recommendation of this application.  However, I would like to reiterate that this proposal is not for a new dwellinghouse but an annexe associated to 334 Upper Fant Road; and whilst there may be other alternatives, I must consider the proposal put before me.

 

6.2     I am of the view that this proposal would not cause any demonstrable harm to the character, appearance and amenity of the surrounding area.  It is therefore considered overall that the proposal is acceptable with regard to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Extensions and all other material considerations such as are relevant.  I therefore recommend conditional approval of the application on this basis.

 

7.0    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 hereby permitted shall match those as shown on drawing no. 774a received 07/04/14 and maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

3.   The additional accommodation hereby permitted shall only be used as additional accommodation ancillary to the principal dwelling (334 Upper Fant Road) and shall not be sub-divided, separated or altered in any way so as to create a separate, self-contained residential unit;

Reason: To ensure the amenity of future occupants and neighbouring properties.

4.   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
774a received 07/04/14;

Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is maintained and to prevent harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Note to Applicant

In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. MBC works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by:

Offering a pre-application advice and duty desk service.

Where possible, suggesting solutions to secure a successful outcome.

As appropriate, updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application.

In this instance:

The applicant/agent was advised of minor changes required to the application and these were agreed.

The application was considered by the Planning Committee where the applicant/agent had the opportunity to speak to the committee and promote the application.

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 there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.