Your Councillors


REPORT SUMMARY

28 September 2017

 

REFERENCE NO -  17/503428/FULL

APPLICATION PROPOSAL -

Two storey side and rear extension

ADDRESS - 26 Waldron Drive, Loose, Maidstone, Kent

RECOMMENDATION - GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -

The proposed development would be acceptable in terms of both the national and local planning policies.

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE –

Loose Parish Council requested that the application be brought before the Planning Committee

WARD

Loose

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL

Loose

APPLICANT Mr And Mrs Pagnell

 

DECISION DUE DATE

22.09.2017

PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE

23.08.2017

OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE

22.08.2017

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

App No

Proposal

Decision

Date

12/2088

Single storey front extension

PER

24.01.2013

01/0465

Erection of porch

PER

03.05.2001

81/0221

Single storey rear extension

PER

09.04.1981

 

MAIN REPORT

 

DESCRIPTION OF SITE

 

1.1  The application site is located on the west side of Waldron Drive at the junction with Bray Gardens, which is within the urban area of Maidstone. The surrounding area is of mixed character with semi-detached properties on Waldron Drive and detached properties in Bray Gardens. As you move further away from the application property in Bray Gardens properties are stepped back from the road creating a more spacious character.

 

1.2    Whilst local properties appear to be of a similar age, a large number have previously been extended including single and double storey side extensions. Whilst the majority of nearby properties are built in groups, the design of the application property does not match any neighbouring property.   

 

1.3    The application site comprises a two storey semi-detached dwelling of brick with a pitched, tiled roof. A detached single storey garage with a shallow pitched roof is located to the side of the main property on the southern boundary. The property also currently has a single storey flat roof rear extension. There is a fall in ground level in the front garden with the property of approximately 0.4 metres lower than the pavement.

 

1.4    The property at 24 Waldron Drive is the other half of the semi-detached pair, located to the north of the application property. This property has a cat slide porch roof and has previously been extended with a single storey side extension. This property also has a single storey detached garage.

     

1.5   To the south of the application property is the detached property at 26 Bray Gardens. This property has previously been extended with a single storey double garage that marks the property boundary. Other than being within the urban settlement of Maidstone, there are no site specific policies that are relevant to this application. The application site is outside the area covered by North Loose Neighbourhood Plan.

 

2.0    PROPOSAL

2.1  The two storey extension would have a width of 5.2 metres and a depth of 12.8 metres, of which 3.6 metres would extend beyond the original rear footprint of the property. The front of the property would include a catslide roof with an eaves height of 2.2 metres and a ridge height of 7.2 metres. The two storey extension would involve demolition of the existing garage with a replacement garage provided as part of the new extension. 

 

2.2    A dormer window on the front roof slope of the catslide would have a width of 3.2 metres. The ridge extending to the back of the property would be set down approximately 0.2 metres from the ridge of the original property.

 

3.0    POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

* Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: H18

* National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

* National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

* Supplementary Planning Documents: Residential Extensions

* Final Draft Maidstone Local Plan (2011-2031): DM1, DM9

3.1    Paragraph 216 of the NPPF sets out the factors which influence the weight to be given to emerging LP policies – preparation stage, extent of unresolved objections and consistency with the NPPF.

 

3.2   Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2016) was submitted to the Secretary of State for examination on 20th May 2016.  The Local Plan Inspector issued his Report on the Examination of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan on 27th July 2017.  The Report is accompanied by an appendix containing the Main Modifications. The Inspector concludes that, with the incorporation of the Main Modifications, the submission Maidstone Borough Local Plan is sound. The adoption of the Local Plan will be considered at the next meeting of the Council on 27th September 2017.

 

3.3    In these circumstances, it is considered that approaching full weight should be afforded to the Maidstone Borough Local Plan incorporating the Main Modifications in the determination of planning applications.

 

4.0    LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

4.1   The planning application has been advertised with individual letters sent to adjoining properties, and a site notice. No response has been received.

 

5.0    CONSULTATIONS

(Please note that summaries of consultation responses are set out below with the response discussed in more detail in the main report where considered necessary)

 

5.1   Loose Parish Council: Object to the application and refer it to the Planning Committee due to the scale of the extension and the narrowness of the site which will give a degree of terracing. It overwhelms the original property due to the scale of the extension.

 

6.0    APPRAISAL

 

          Main Issues

6.1  The key issues for consideration relate to:

·                Impact on the application property;

·                Impact on the character of the surrounding area;

·                Impact on residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers;

·                Highways and parking considerations.

 

6.2  Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that all planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Statutory Development Plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the Development Plan consists of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and the Final Draft Maidstone Local Plan (2011-2031).

 

6.3  The application site is located within the Maidstone urban area. Policy DM8 of the emerging Plan states that within the defined boundaries of the urban area, proposals for residential extensions will be permitted which meet certain criteria. The extension has to be acceptable within the surrounding context; it has to retain boundary treatment; the extension should not have an adverse impact on neighbouring residents and the proposal should provide sufficient parking. These issues are considered below.

 

          Impact on the application property

6.4    The application property was originally constructed in the 1960’s as a two storey building with a pitched roof. In 1981 a single storey rear extension was granted, and in 2001 a further application was granted for a porch. In 2012 permission was granted for a single storey front extension, but this has not been implemented.

 

6.5    The proposed development of a two storey extension would have a catslide roof on the front elevation. This design with the roof sloping upwards (from single to double storey) and away from the front elevation would reduce the bulk and massing of the extension, with the front roof eaves at the height of a single storey extension. Although the extension would be set slightly forward of the front elevation of the property, the roof style and dormer window would ensure that it is subservient and maintain some relief to the frontage. The design would comply with the Local Plan policies and residential design guidance.

 

          Impact on the character of the surrounding area

6.6    Development proposals should have high quality design and respond positively to, and enhance the character of the area. Particular regard will be paid to scale, height, materials, detailing, mass, bulk, articulation, and site coverage, incorporating a high quality modern design approach (emerging policy DM 1).

 

6.7    The application property is one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings that are located on a corner plot. The difference in character between the application property and more uniform properties in the surrounding area include the design of the front elevation property and wider plot widths. The main front elevation of the other half of the semi-detached pair at 24 Waldron Drive is also stepped back behind the front elevation of the application property. A pair of properties in a similar corner position is located on the opposite side of the road at 33 and 35 Waldron Drive.

 

6.8    For these reasons, the proposed development would not unbalance the semi-detached pair of dwellings. The difference in these properties is sufficient for the scale and bulk to marry into the existing property without resulting in a discordant feature. The proposed extension would be subservient to the host property, and would be constructed in materials which would match the existing building in addition to being appropriate to the character of the surrounding area.

 

Impact on residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers

6.9    The NPPF sets out that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that planning should seek a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of buildings.

 

6.10  The nearest property to the proposed development is No 26 Bray Gardens, which is located to the south of the application site. The main property at 26 Bray Gardens is set back by between 2.5 and 9 metres from the site boundary with a single storey double garage occupying the space between the main property and boundary at the front of the site. The proposed two storey extension would be 3.3 metres from the side property boundary at the rear of the property, and 1.0 metre from the side boundary at the front of the property.

 

6.11  The design includes a catslide roof on the front elevation, with the roof of the two storey rear section designed with a hip end roof. It is considered that the design and appearance of the extension with the roof form will reduce the bulk and scale of the extension to an acceptable level. Any potential impact will be further reduced by the set back from the property boundary, the 1.8 metre timber fence and the double garage on the neighbouring property. A small single storey log store would be located between the two storey extension and the property boundary. With a height of 2.2 metres to the eaves and 2.8 at the ridge it is considered that this building is acceptable in relation to residential amenity.

 

6.12  There would be a utility room door and window on the ground floor flank wall, along with a bedroom window. The bathroom window at first floor would be obscure glazed. There is a window on the rear of the proposed garage, but this is to non-habitable space as shown on the submitted plans.

 

6.13  The proposed extension would be located approximately 6 metres from the boundary with the adjoining neighbour at No 24 Waldron Drive. A condition is recommended that would prevent the insertion of any new openings at first floor level and above. For these reasons, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to neighbouring amenity.

 

          Highways and parking considerations.

6.14  Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved; and that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

 

6.15  The proposed development would result in the removal of an existing garage, and the provision of a replacement garage. it is considered that there would be sufficient parking available and the proposal would not harm highway safety.

 

7.0    CONCLUSION

 

7.1  For the reasons set out in this report, the development proposals are in line with planning policies and residential guidance. The proposal would maintain the character of the area and would maintain sufficient separation with neighbouring properties to avoid creating a terracing impact. The design and appearance of the extension is in keeping with the appearance of the existing property. With separation distances the proposal is acceptable in relation to residential amenity. Where the highways issues do not comply, justification has been given in that section of the report. The recommendation is to grant permission subject to conditions.

 

 

8.0              RECOMMENDATION

 

8.1       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 the 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 plans:

            E203/004 Proposed plans Rec: 24.07.2017

E203/003 Proposed elevations Rec: 24.07.2017

Location plan Rec: 28.07.2017    

 

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

 

3.         The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building.

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

 

4.         No additional windows, doors, voids or other openings shall be inserted, placed or formed at any time above ground floor level in the northeast and southwest facing walls of the building hereby permitted;

 

Reason: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and to safeguard the privacy of their occupiers.

 

Case Officer: Jocelyn Miller

 

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