REPORT SUMMARY

REFERENCE NO -  16/503665/FULL

APPLICATION PROPOSAL

Two-storey side and rear extension

ADDRESS 85 Murrain Drive, Downswood, ME15 8XN

RECOMMENDATION  - GRANT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The proposal is considered to preserve the character and appearance of

the Street scene and residential amenity and to comply with the

Development Plan. There are no overriding material considerations to

indicate a refusal.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

 

The recommendation is contrary to the views of Downswood Parish Council, who have requested Committee consideration.

WARD

Downswood & Otham

 

 

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL

Downswood

APPLICANT

Mrs H Soupe

AGENT

Coteq Ltd

DECISION DUE DATE

05/07/16

PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE

07/06/16

OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE

13/10/16

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining sites): None specific.

 

 

MAIN REPORT

 

1.0          DESCRIPTION OF SITE

 

1.01     This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling, which is located at the end of Murrain Drive, a cul-de-sac, within the defined urban area in the local plan. The dwelling is set well back from the turning head at the end of the road.

 

1.02     The Street scene is characterised by semi-detached two storey dwellings, with staggered building lines and generally small plots.

 

2.0       PROPOSAL

 

2.01     Planning Permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey side and rear extension. The extension would create an enlarged kitchen, WC and store upon the ground floor and to the first floor, an existing bedroom and bathroom would be enlarged and an additional bedroom created, to give a total of 4 bedrooms.

 

2.02     The existing small front lawn would be block paved to accommodate a second parking space.

 

 

 

3.0       POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000: H18

Submission Version of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2016): DM1, DM8, DM27

Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Residential Extensions’ 

 

4.0       LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

 

None received to date.

 

5.0       CONSULTATIONS

 

5.01     Downswood Parish Council: objects to the application on the grounds of size. “In particular, the rear extension is too large for the plot and virtually eradicates all of the garden”. The parish council request that the application be called to Planning Committee if the officer recommendation is for approval.

 

5.02     The Parish Council were advised of the officer recommendation for approval and the reasons for this recommendation, however they still wished to maintain their objection.

 

 

6.0       APPRAISAL

 

            Visual Impact

 

6.01     Policy H18 of the local plan requires that house extensions be of a subordinate scale to, and do not harm the character of, the original property and that they preserve the character and appearance of street scenes.

 

6.02     In this case, the proposal is considered clearly subordinate to the existing dwelling. It would be set down from the main ridge by approximately 0.8 m and set back from the front facade by around 3 m, which would ensure that it is wholly subservient to the existing house.

 

6.03     The design of the first floor would be sympathetic to the existing house. It would maintain a gabled roof design with the same pitch as the main roof to the side extension and windows would be in keeping with the existing property.The area of flat roofing to the ground floor would be of a small scale and not prominently located in the Street scene.

 

6.04     The Parish Council have objected upon the grounds of size, focusing on the impact upon the garden. However, as they were advised, there is no minimum garden size policy, therefore, there is no grounds for refusal on this basis. Moreover, the block plan shows that a usable garden area of around 8 to 10 m would remain, which is considered to retain a satisfactory living environment. In my view, the extension would be of a scale which is not at all unreasonable in a built-up area such as this and it would have a satisfactory visual appearance.

 

6.05     The SPD “Residential Extensions” requires a gap of 3 m to be retained between neighbouring buildings at first-floor level and the proposal would accord with this requirement, as a gap of around 3 m would be retained. Also, because of the staggered layout of the street, existing gaps do not in any case make a strong contribution to the character of the Street scene, because they are generally only visible in short range views.

 

6.06     The loss of the front garden area to parking would be in a location which, again, due to the position of the plot, has very limited visibility in the Street scene and it is not considered of a scale to result in significant visual harm.

 

6.07     It is concluded that the visual impact of the development would comply with policy H18 of the local plan and the aims of the SPD “Residential Extensions”.

 

            Residential Amenity

 

6.07     The proposal is not considered to cause significant harm to any of the surrounding properties in terms of residential amenity.

 

6.08     In terms of light and outlook, there would be no significant harm to any neighbouring property it is considered. Number 83 is set back from number 85 and the proposed extension would only marginally project beyond the rear of number 83, plus number 83 is also situated upon higher land. The development passes a BRE loss of light test, as referred to in the residential extensions guidelines for number 83 and would not result in significant harm to light or outlook for that property.

 

6.09     Turning to number 87, the development would only extend by approximately 2 m to the rear of the existing house on site at first-floor level and it would be set in by approximately 2.5 m from the boundary with number 87. It is noted that number 87 also has a single storey rear extension alongside the boundary with the site. The extension passes a  BRE loss of light test for number 87 as well and is not considered to result in significant harm in terms of light or outlook to this property either. The properties to the rear are located a reasonable distance away. Therefore, due to the scale of the extension, its siting, its separation from surrounding properties and the orientation and land levels in respect of number 83, they are not considered to be any significant light or outlook issues for any neighbouring property.

 

6.10     New fenestration at ground floor level would not be in a position to create significantly new views over neighbouring properties. The first-floor flank bathroom window can be conditioned to be obscure glazed and the rear window would be sufficiently separated from properties behind to prevent significant overlooking, plus views from the proposed rear bedroom would be similar to views from the existing rear bedrooms.

 

6.11     It is noted that no objections have been received from any of the neighbouring properties. It is concluded that the development would comply with policy H18 of the local plan and the aims of the SPD “Residential Extensions” in terms of its impact upon residential amenity.

 

            Parking

 

6.12     Two spaces would be retained, which is considered sufficient for a 4 bedroom dwelling in this urban location, which is close to public transport links. This also accords with the emerging parking standards in the emerging local plan.

 

 

7.0       CONCLUSION

 

7.01     The proposal is considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Street scene and residential amenity and to comply with the Development Plan, and the aims of the Supplementary Planning Document “Residential Extensions”. There are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal. Approval is therefore recommended.

 

8.0       RECOMMENDATION – GRANT 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:

 

Drawing numbers 00001 Rev A received on 10/05/16 and 00002 Rev A-WIP received on 27/04/16;

 

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

 

(3)     The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building;

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

 

(4)     Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed bathroom window to the side elevation shall be obscure glazed and shall be incapable of being opened, unless the part which opens is at least 1.7m above the finished floor level of the room in which it is installed and it shall subsequently be maintained as such;

 

          Reason: In order to provide a satisfactory living environment.

 

 

Case Officer: Louise Welsford

 

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