Contact your Parish Council

APPLICATION:       MA/14/0495         Date: 27 March 2014      Received: 27 March 2014

 

APPLICANT:	Mr Rupe  Channa
LOCATION:	RINGSTEAD, MARLEY ROAD, HARRIETSHAM, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME17 1BS
PARISH:	Harrietsham
PROPOSAL:	Extension and alteration of existing outbuilding and conversion to annexe as shown on drawing nos: 14/1209/01, 02, 03 and 04 and site locatiom plan received on the 27th March 2014.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	12th June 2014   Graham Parkinson

 

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

 

          ●        It is contrary to views expressed by Harrietsham Parish Council

 

1. 0    POLICIES

 

Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000:  H33, ENV28

Maidstone Draft Borough Local Plan: DM30, DM33

Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Extensions

Government Policy:  NPPF 2012, NPPG 2014

 

1. 0    RELEVANT HISTORY

 

MA/13/1929: Conversion of existing outbuilding to ancillary accommodation and erection of a roof extension.

 

This application should have been a refused as a delegated decision on the grounds that the proposal would not have appeared  as a modest outbuilding in relation to the main dwellinghouse therefore causing unacceptable visual harm to the character, appearance and openness of the countryside. 

 

Notwithstanding on the 23^rd December 2013 planning permission was granted in error for the development.  However the view of the Council is that this is not a valid planning permission and this decision is currently the subject of a Judicial  Review.

 

 

MA/12/1900 : Extension of existing games room to facilitate conversion into ancillary accommodation including first floor living accommodation-REFUSED- 3^rd December 2012 on the grounds that the proposed conversion works would result in a unit of accommodation capable of being occupied independent of Ringstead and that it would not appear as a modest outbuilding in relation to the main dwellinghouse, causing unacceptable visual harm to the character, appearance and openness of the countryside. 

 

 

2. 0    CONSULTATIONS

 

3.1     Harrietsham Parish Council objects on the following grounds:

 

-      The Borough Council previously refused an application at this property and the Parish Council feels that this new application should be refused for the same reasons as the previous application.

 

3. 0    REPRESENTATIONS

 

4.1     5 properties were consulted and no representations have been received.

 

4. 0    CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1    Site Description

 

5.1.1  ‘Ringstead’ is a detached bungalow sited within a relatively large rectangular shaped plot of land.  Ringstead is set more than 18 metres back  from Marley Road with the site is some 150 metres to the north-east of the junction with Dickley Lane.

 

5.1.2  There are two vehicle entrances into the site from Marley Road.  The flat roofed outbuilding, the subject of this application is located some 7m from the main property’s north-eastern elevation, behind an existing double garage.  The surrounding area is rural in character with isolated and sporadic residential properties of differing scale, design and age.  Marley Road is a narrow single lane carriage way with open fields to the west of the site.

 

5.2    Proposal

 

5.2.1  The proposal is to extend the existing flat roofed games room by provision of a first floor to enable its conversion to ancillary accommodation which it is understood will be occupied by the applicant’s elderly relatives.

 

5.2.2  The existing building is a flat roofed structure having a height of 2.6 metres and a footprint of 7.5x5.2 metres. The proposed first floor addition, which will also be flat roofed, will increase the height of the building to 5.2 metres.

 

5.2.3 The ground floor of the building will be finished in smooth white painted render with the first floor finished in vertical cedar cladding with full depth french windows with Juliette balconies on the south facing elevation looking down the garden.

 

5.2.3  The first floor addition will be cantilevered over the ground floor addition projecting 1.5 metres beyond the rear (south) facing wall and be supported by 3 vertical upstands.

 

5.2.4  Ground floor accommodation will comprise a double bedroom with ensuite bathroom/wc and hall with the first floor used as a lounge/kitchenette.

 

5.3    Principle of Development

 

5.3.1  The western side of Marley Road falls within the confines of the Kent Downs Area of Natural Beauty (AONB). The North Downs Special Landscape Area (SLA) is sited to the west of this property. The application site lies within open countryside and is not subject to any specific landscape protection apart from the general rural development restraint objectives set out in policy ENV28 of the adopted local plan.

 

5.3.2  It is considered that the key issue is whether the revised proposal can be seen to overcome the reason for refusal in connection with application ref: MA/13/1929 (but granted planning permission in error and the subject of Judical Review).

 

5.3.2  Planning permission for application ref: MA/13/1929 should have been refused on the grounds that the proposal would not have appeared  as a modest outbuilding in relation to the main dwellinghouse while causing unacceptable visual harm to the character, appearance and openness of the countryside. 

 

5.3.3  Given the more limited range of the accomodation now proposed compared to the previous proposal, it is considered that it is modest in scale consistent with the proposed use of the building as a annexe to the main dwelling and no objection is raised to this.         

 

5.4    Visual Impact

 

5.4.1  The proposal submitted under ref: MA/13/1929, was for a gable ended pitched roof structure, having an eaves height of just over 2 metres and a ridge height of 6 metres.

 

5.4.2  The development now proposed involves the erection of a flat roofed structure designed in a contemporary style having an overall height of 5.2 metres. Though the roof profile has altered, given the height reduction of 0.8 metres, it is considered this represents a material reduction in the impression of height and bulk. Allied to falls in levels helping to further reduce the impact of the building, these combine to ensure that the building as extended will remain modest in scale and its impact on the character and openness of the countryside, in size terms, is considered acceptable. In making this latter comment regard should be had to the well enclosed nature of the site. This ensures that the impact of the development is contained within the site rather than having any impact on the wider landscape falling outside the garden curtilage of Ringstead.

 

5.4.3  Turning to design issues, Ringstead is of a traditional pitched roof design while the surrounding area is rural in character. The normal expectation is that new development will reflect the prevailing character of an area. Subject however to the proposed development being acceptable in design terms and appropriate to its context, it is considered that there is no inherent objection to a departure from existing design norms.

 

5.4.2  The plain square flat roofed profile of the building is substantially relieved by individual design elements including the use of vertical cedar boarding at first floor, size, design and siting of the various doors and windows, including use of the Juliette balcony. In addition, cantilevering the first floor, though giving the building a slightly asymmetric appearance, is offset by the use of vertical supports maintaining the visual weight and strength of the building.

 

5.4.3  As such the proposal is considered to represent a simple uncluttered design to which no inherent design objection is raised. Matters turn on whether it is appropriate to this setting.

 

5.4.4  Ringstead occupies a large well enclosed plot with the outbuilding to be extended set at a lower level than Ringstead and separated from it by a distance of over 7 metres. The outbuilding is currently not visible from Marley Road being set back from it by just under 50 metres with the bulk of an existing garage and Ringstead intervening. Though the proposed first floor addition will double the height of the outbuilding, given falls in levels and the height of the nearby garage and Ringstead, it will still not be visible from Marley Road.  Furthermore dense boundary screening ensures it will not be visible from houses abutting the site to the north and south. As such it is not considered that the proposed design will have any material impact on the setting of the immediate area or rural character of the wider area.

 

5.4.5  Turning to the impact of the design of the building on the character and setting of Ringstead,  given the degree of separation and that the design is considered acceptable in its own right, no objection is identified on these grounds.

 

5.5    Residential Amenity

 

5.5.1  Given the well enclosed nature of the site and that adjoining properties are set well off the boundaries, no harm is identified to the outlook or amenity of properties abutting the site.

 

5.6    Other Matters

 

5.6.1 The views of the Parish Council are noted. It remains of the view that the proposal is unacceptable as it would result in a unit of accommodation capable of being occupied independently of Ringstead and that it would not appear as a modest outbuilding in relation to the main dwellinghouse therefore causing unacceptable visual harm to the character, appearance and openness of the countryside. 

 

5.8.2 Notwithstanding the concerns raised, it is considered that for the reasons set out above the proposal now materially addresses the objections raised in connection with application refs: MA/12/1900 and MA/13/1929.

 

5.8.3 Regarding application MA/13/1929, the subject of Judicial Review, it is understood that the applicants will not be contesting this. However even if the Court does not agree that the application is invalid, given the size and siting of the proposed development it would not be possible  to implement both proposals. Furthermore the applicant’s have advised that the current proposal better suits their requirements and that they would not implement MA/13/1929 even if this permission was judged to be valid.

 

6.0    CONCLUSION

 

6.1     It is considered that the proposed accommodation has been reduced in size and scale consistent with its proposed use as an annexe, is acceptable in design terms, will not have any adverse impact on the outlook or amenity of house abutting the site while the height and bulk has been reduced so that it no longer has any material impact on the rural character and openness of the area. In the circumstances it is considered that the proposal is now worthy of support and that planning permission should be granted.

 

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.   External materials to be used in the development hereby approved shall be as specified.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

3.   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: as shown on drawing nos: 14/1209/01, 02, 03 and 04 and site location plan received on the 27th March 2014.

Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is maintained in the interests of amenity.

4.   The annexe hereby approved shall only be occupied as ancillary accommodation to Ringstead.

Reason: To safeguard the character of the area in the interests of amenity.

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