Your Councillors


REPORT SUMMARY

 

REFERENCE NO -  15/501985/FULL

APPLICATION PROPOSAL

Demolition of the existing porch, and the erection of a single storey side extension with the insertion of rooflights and changes to fenestration.

ADDRESS  639 Loose Road

                   Maidstone

                   Kent

                   ME15 9UT

RECOMMENDATION Grant permission subject to planning conditions

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/REASONS FOR REFUSAL

 

The development is considered to comply with policy H18 of the local plan and therefore does not warrant a refusal.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

 

Requested By Loose Parish Council that the application is reported to planning committee in the event of an officer recommendation for approval. 

 

WARD South Ward

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Loose

APPLICANT Mr Paul Brodie

AGENT N/A

DECISION DUE DATE

07/08/15

PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE

07/08/15

OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE Various

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining sites): No planning history

 

MAIN REPORT

 

1.0         DESCRIPTION OF SITE

 

1.01      The application site comprises a two storey semi-detached residential property situated within the urban area. The application property has a driveway to the front of the site and a relatively long rear garden (35 metres). The front elevation of the application property faces north west and onto Loose Road.

 

1.02      The main part of the application property is two storeys high with a hipped roof. Immediately to the rear of the main property is a two storey ‘lean to’ structure, with the rear part of the application building single storey in height with a pitched roof. With the neighbouring property at 637 Loose Road constructed in the same way, it appears that the application building was originally constructed in this manner. As the property is relatively narrow the main entrance to the property is from the side elevation and a porch is currently located to the side elevation.

        

1.03      The property is situated within the parish of Loose on the east side of Loose Road around 200 metres north of Loose Junior School. The immediate surrounding area comprises a variety of semi-detached, detached and terraced two storey houses.

 

1.04      To the south of the application property is the semi-detached property at 641 Loose Road. This adjoining property has a single storey garage building directly adjacent to the shared site boundary. At the rear of the garage and also adjacent to the application site boundary is the detached two storey property at 641b Loose Road.

 

1.05      The detached two storey property at 558 Loose Road is located opposite the application site in a row of 7 detached properties. To the north of the application property and towards the junction with Pickering Street is the row of terraced properties at 613 to 635 Loose Road. The front elevation of this nearby terrace is located 6 metres forward of the application property.

 

1.06      The application site is not located within an area of any planning constraints or restrictions.

 

2.0       PROPOSAL

 

2.01    The proposed development is for the demolition of the existing side porch, and the erection of a single storey side extension to the south elevation of the property with the insertion of roof lights and changes to fenestration. 

 

2.02    The proposed side extension will have the same height and form as the existing porch but will extend forward and to the rear of the existing porch location. The majority of the proposed extension would have a pitched roof with a flat roof section towards the rear of the site and adjacent to the single storey part of the existing building.

 

2.03    The proposed extension would have a width of 1.8m, a depth of around 14m and a maximum height of 3.5m. The new addition would infill space to the front and rear of the existing porch and would extend the property up to the southern boundary of the site. The existing porch is set back by 3 metres from the front elevation of the property and the proposed extension will reduce this set back to 1.6 metres.

 

2.04    The extension would be made up of brick and block work, and would have a slate roof, velux style windows and a composite front door and upvc back door. 

 

 

 

 

3.0       PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

 

3.01    The proposal site is not situated within an area of any planning constraints or restrictions. 

 

4.0       POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Development Plan: H18

Supplementary Planning Documents: Residential Extensions SPD

 

5.0       LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATION

 

5.01    Loose Parish Council - object to the application for the following reasons:

 

It was felt that the hand-drawn plans were confusing and inadequate in particular in showing the roof lines. The development would run continuously along the boundary wall. The design gave a general blocking effect and it was felt that the plans would only add to the piecemeal aesthetic design of the building.

 

6.0       BACKGROUND PAPERS AND PLANS

 

Block Plan

Existing Back Elevation

Existing Side Elevation

Photographs x 2

Proposed & Existing Front Elevation

Proposed & Exist Floor Plan

Proposed Back Elevation

 

7.0       APPRAISAL

 

            Principle of Development

 

7.01    The proposal site is located within the defined urban area and therefore saved policy H18 of the adopted Local Plan is of relevance.  The main issues are to consider the visual impact upon the host building and upon the surrounding area and on the amenities of neighbouring properties. 

 

            Visual Impact

 

7.02    Policy H18 states that it will permit additions to residential properties provided that the development is not of a scale or design that overwhelms or destroys the character of the original property or that will have a detrimental impact upon the street scene and character of the area. 

 

7.03    The proposed single storey extension is located to the side of the application property and set back by 1.6 metres from the front building elevation.  It would also be set back from Loose Road by around 13 metres.

 

7.04    The application site has a front boundary wall and fence which are around 1.8 metres in height with a tree and other vegetation. As a result there would be limited visibility of the extension from the street. It is considered that due to its position, scale and design the extension would not have a detrimental impact upon the street scene in Loose Road. There is also some variety in terms of local building design and style and where visible the extension would not appear out of place in this location.

 

7.05    The application site comprises a two storey semi-detached property.  The proposed side extension will be single storey and set back from the existing front elevation. The extension would therefore appear subservient to the existing building. It is not considered that the scale of the extension would unbalance the pair of semi-detached properties.

 

7.06    It is proposed to use matching materials to the existing dwelling. In my mind the extension is of a good quality design that is in keeping with the application property and the area generally. I therefore consider that the proposed extension will not have any adverse impact upon the character of the application building or the surrounding area. 

 

            Residential Amenity

 

7.07    Policy H18 states that additions to residential properties will be acceptable provided that they respect the amenities of adjoining residents in terms of privacy, daylight, sunlight and maintenance of a pleasant outlook. 

 

7.08    A porch is currently located to the side elevation of the application property.  The porch extends to the side boundary with the adjoining property at 641 Loose Road with an existing 1.5 -1.8 metre high brick wall located on this boundary. The main entrance to 641 Loose Road is also on the side elevation of this building with two other ground floor side elevation windows. A single storey garage is located in the rear garden of 641 Loose Road and adjacent to the boundary with the application site

 

7.09    The proposed single storey extension is of a moderate scale and not of an excessive height. The proposal includes the extension of the application building adjacent to the boundary with 641 Loose Road, however with the scale, position of the extension and the screening in place I consider that the proposed extension would not result in any significant or unacceptable loss of light or outlook to this neighbouring property. The impact of the proposed extension will be further reduced by the location of the neighbour’s garage directly adjacent to the boundary and next to part of the proposed extension.

 

7.10    The extension would include two small rooflights on the pitched roof facing towards 641 Loose Road and a single door to the rear elevation.  There is good screening in place in the form of the brick boundary wall.  With this screening, the angle of the roof lights and internal floor levels I do not consider that the proposed extension would cause any privacy or overlooking issues to this neighbouring property.  With the location of the proposed extension it is not considered that the proposal will harm the amenities of other neighbouring properties. 

 

            Landscaping

 

7.11    The proposed development would not result in the loss of any trees or vegetation. 

 

Other Matters

 

7.12    The application site has a driveway to the front of the site. The existing parking arrangements would remain unaltered and the existing parking would be retained as part of the proposal. With the scale of the proposal it is not considered that it will generate any increase in parking requirements at the site or vehicle movements to and from the site. The proposals are considered in line with to relevant Local Plan policy and SPD guidance in this area.

 

7.13    Loose Parish Council have raised concerns over the quality of the drawings that were submitted as part of the planning application. The submitted plans are considered to comply with the Council’s validation requirements as set out in the published local list. The submitted plans are considered sufficient to allow an adequate assessment of the potential impact of the proposed extension. Notwithstanding this assessment the applicant has provided further annotation on the application drawings as clarification. Other points raised about the impact of the building have been considered in the above report.   

 

8.0       CONCLUSION

 

8.01    For the above reasons it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to planning conditions. 

 

9.0      RECOMMENDATIONGRANT 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed & Existing Front Elevation received 22/06/15 and Proposed & Exist Floor Plan, Proposed Back Elevation both received 30/10/15

 

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 Plan 2000.

 

3.         The facing materials used in the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building in materials, style, colour, texture and, in the case of brickwork, bonding, coursing and pointing.

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the development.

 

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.

 

Case Officer: James Moysey

 

NB: For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant Public Access pages on the council’s website.