APPLICATION:       MA/13/2148    Date: 12 December 2013  Received: 13 December 2013

 

APPLICANT:	Mr John  Richardson
LOCATION:	7, DOWNS VIEW ROAD, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME14 2JB
PARISH:	Maidstone
PROPOSAL:	Erection of ground floor front extension and roof extension that includes raising of ridge height and insertion of dormer windows to facilitate creation of first floor accommodation (resubmission of MA/13/1508) as shown on drawing number JR/08/13/1 received 13th December 2013, and drawing numbers JR/08/13/2 rev B and JR/08/13/3 rev B received 5th March 2014.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	1st May 2014   Catherine Slade

 

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

 

●    it is has been called in by Councillor Paterson for the reasons set out in the report.

 

1.       POLICIES

 

·         Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000:  ENV6, H18, T13

·         Village Design Statement:  Not applicable

·         Other:  Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2009

·         Government Policy:  National Planning Policy Framework 2012, National Planning Policy Guidance 2014

·         Maidstone Borough Local Plan (draft):  DM4, DM8

·          

2.      HISTORY

 

●    MA/13/1508                   Erection of ground floor front extension and roof extension that includes raising of ridge height and insertion of dormer windows to facilitate creation of first floor accommodation (resubmission of MA/13/0996) – REFUSED, APPEAL DISMISSED

●    MA/13/0996                   Erection of ground floor front extension and roof extension that includes raising of ridge height and insertion of dormer windows to facilitate creation of first floor accommodation – REFUSED

 

2.1    The current application follows the refusal of two previous applications for a similar development, the latter of which was dismissed at appeal; the drawings relating to the latter application (MA/13/1508) are attached as Appendix 1 and the appeal decision is attached as Appendix 2 to the current report.

 

3.      REPRESENTATIONS

 

3.1    Councillor Paterson has requested that the application be reported to Planning Committee on the following grounds:

 

3.1.1 “I would make the following comments on the following comments on what appears to be an amended attempt to submit a proposal which addresses the Inspector’s reasons for dismissal of MA/13/1508.

 

3.1.2 In essence the amended proposal remains the same as the original MA/13/2148 apart from a change from a ½ hip to a fully sloping roof and the introduction of a pitched roof former window to replace the one of the vertical face of the ½ hip on the front elevation together with a reduction in the number of Velux windows on the side elevations.

 

3.1.3 This is presumably to give an impression of a decrease to the “bulk” of the roof and seeks to address the Inspector’s concerns at reason 7 in his appeal report.

 

3.1.4 How successful this has been is a matter of opinion. There remains a degree of bulk from this new dormer on the front elevation and the general look of this area of roof is messy and at odds with the coherent character of this group of existing modestly scaled bungalows which the Inspector refers to.

 

 

3.1.5 The style and number of the dormer windows on each side elevation have been altered from 3 flat roofed dormers in the appealed application to one large pitched roof dormer in the current amended application. However the Inspector notes quite clearly in the report that the combination of the alterations to the existing roof form, the amended ridge, its orientation and height – “along with the north or dormers” accumulate to produce a resultant extension that overwhelms and dominates the original building and appears out of keeping in the street.

 

3.1.6 As there are still excessive alterations to the existing form, the amended ridge, its orientation and height all remain the same as in the appealed application it would seem that the change to the dormer windows does not itself address the Inspector’s concerns or reason for dismissal.”

 

3.2     Five representations were received from four households as a result of the publicity exercise. Two of the representations supported the application, and three (from two households) were objections, raising the following planning concerns:

 

●    The scale and design of the proposed extensions in relation to the original dwelling and their visual impact upon the streetscene.

●    Harm to the residential amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties by way of loss of light/overshadowing, loss of privacy/overlooking and disturbance as a result of the development.

●    Parking.

●    The local need for bungalows.

 

3.3    The following non-planning matters were raised: subsidence caused by water overflow, the development history of the applicant, and the status of the occupiers of neighbouring properties as being pensioners. These will not be discussed further in this report.

 

4.      CONSIDERATIONS

 

4.1    Site Description

 

4.1.1 The proposal site comprises a modest detached bungalow located in Penenden Heath within the defined settlement boundary of Maidstone. The site is located to the west of Downs View Road, an unclassified highway. The site has an existing vehicular access to the highway, and off road parking for two vehicles within the curtilage of the property.

 

4.1.2 The property is sited within a row of diminutive detached bungalows of similar proportions and scale, if not detailed design, which are located to the west of Downs View Road. The built environment is more varied elsewhere along the highway, which includes chalet bungalows and two storey dwellings on the opposite side of the road and is dominated by semi-detached properties.

 

 

4.1.3 Although the site itself slopes downwards towards the rear (north west), land levels slope more widely from south to north. The dwellings along the road are stepped in terms of the ground levels in response to this topography with the result that the proposal site is set up in relation to the neighbouring property (number 9 Downs View Road) by approximately 0.5m, although it is at a similar level to the property to the south (5 Downs View Road), which has a greater height than the dwelling on the proposal site.

 

4.2    Proposal

 

4.2.1 The application is for the provision of additional living accommodation through the squaring off of the footprint of the existing dwellings and a loft conversion including the raising of the ridge height by 0.5m and the introduction of one dormer and one rooflight to both side (north and south) elevations.

 

4.2.2 Two previous applications for similar schemes have recently been refused. The most recent of these was dismissed at appeal, as set out above.

 

 

4.2.3 The current application differs from the previous application subject to the appeal insofar as the scheme which was dismissed at appeal included three flat roofed dormers to each side elevation, which would have be set back by 2.9m from the front elevation of the building. The front elevation would have had a rather contrived barn hipped form allowing a second floor front window to the property.

 

4.2.4 The current application includes a single dormer to each side elevation, which would be pitched roof in form, and be set back from the main front elevation of the property by 5.8m. The proposed front elevation would be fully hipped with a hipped dormer which would be set back from the main front elevation by 1.8m, and would be clearly related, and subservient, to the main building.

 

4.3    Principle of Development

 

4.3.1 Extensions to residential properties in locations such as this which fall within defined settlements are primarily assessed under the provisions of policy H18 of the Local Plan, which requires proposals to be of an appropriate scale and design; to complement the streetscene and surrounding area; to maintain residential amenity; and provide adequate car parking within the site.

 

4.3.2 Applications for residential extensions are also subject to assessment against the policies set out in the Maidstone Borough Council Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which require extensions to dwellings within defined settlements to be of high quality and to respect the existing pattern of built development and the amenity of the occupiers of adjacent properties.

 

4.3.3 This policy and SPD are in accordance with central government planning policy and guidance as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 which seeks to secure a high quality of design in new development. The SPD states that front and loft extensions should not detract from the visual integrity of a street, but can be acceptable in more variable contexts, such as this.

 

4.3.4 The previous appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the cumulative impact of the increase in the ridge height, the number and scale of the proposed dormers would result in an extension which would overwhelm the original dwelling and be out of keeping with the neighbouring properties. The harm was considered by the Inspector to be compounded by the proposed treatment of the front elevation, which would have resulted in the introduction of a half hip to the front elevation.

 

4.4    Design and Visual Impact

 

4.4.1 As set out above, proposals for similar development have been refused, and in the case of MA/13/1508, dismissed at appeal. The Inspector, in determining the appeal, considered that the cumulative impact of the raising of the ridge and the number and arrangement of the dormers would result in a development that would overwhelm the original building and by way of its overall design would appear out of keeping with the streetscene.

 

4.4.2 The Inspector further opined that whilst the introduction of a front extension and a porch, per se, would not be harmful, that the treatment of the front elevation beyond this would be harmful, in introducing a half hip with cramped front window would be detrimental.

 

4.4.3 The applicant has sought to overcome these concerns, whilst still securing first floor accommodation, by reducing the scale of the dormers, and setting them significantly further towards the rear of the property, thereby reducing their visual impact in public views of the streetscene as the proposed structures would be screened by the existing properties to the north and south.

 

4.4.4 The treatment of the front elevation has also been amended, with a full hip being used, mimicking the existing buildings along the west of the highway. The design incorporates a diminutive centrally located pitched roof dormer which would address the concerns that the Inspector expressed in respect of the formerly proposed arrangement of the front elevation.

 

4.4.5 The form of the front and side dormers and the proposed porch would be pitched to tie in with the roof slopes of the main roof of the resultant building.

 

4.4.6 To my mind, whilst some elements of the proposal, being the raising of the ridge height by 0.8m and the squaring off of the front of the building, remain as before, the visual impact of the proposal in the context of the streetscape is significantly reduced by virtue of the alterations to the scheme in respect of the proposed arrangement of the front elevation and the reduction in number, form, scale and position of the proposed dormers, which would only be visible in direct views of the front of the building and not in more oblique views from elsewhere on the public highway.

 

4.4.7 Whilst the proposal would inevitably result in a dwelling of increased height and scale, the modifications to the design are such that the overall bulk of the resultant building would be significantly less than that previously proposed, and the appearance of the development in relation to both the original dwelling and the wider streetscene is improved.

 

4.4.8 Although the development includes an increase in the height of the ridge of 0.8m, this would remain comparable in height with the apex of the neighbouring dwelling to the south, which has the same levels as the building on the proposal site, and cannot, therefore, be said to be overly discordant with the streetscape in this location.

 

4.4.9 A condition requiring the materials used in the development to match existing is considered in the circumstances of this case to be appropriate, reasonable and necessary.

 

5.      OTHER MATTERS

 

5.1.1  The impact of the proposed structure on the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties has previously been assessed and found to be acceptable due to the absence of any primary windows to the side facing elevations of the neighbouring properties; to my mind this has not changed, and conditions requiring the windows to the dormers to be opaque glazed and fixed are not considered to be necessary. Similarly, issues of highway safety have also been assessed and found to be satisfactory; the existing parking and access arrangements being retained unchanged.

 

5.1.2  It is not considered that the additional use of the existing sewerage system is, in this case, justification for refusal of the application. Disturbance due to the implementation of planning permissions is an inevitable short term impact, but should not result in long term detriment, and parties are within their rights to submit repeated applications for planning permission in cases where there is no valid enforcement notice, and the applications differ from each other and seek to overcome previous reasons for refusal.

 

5.1.3  The matter of foundations would be dealt with by way of the Building Regulations system, and is not a planning matter. The loss of a bungalow is not a planning consideration, particularly as the other properties in the immediate vicinity of the site would be retained as such.

 

 

6.           CONCLUSION

 

6.1     For the reasons set out above, the proposed development is considered to satisfactorily overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous applications and the dismissal of the most recent at appeal, and is therefore recommended for approval.

 

7.           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 development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

3.           The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

drawing number JR/08/13/1 received 13th December 2013, and drawing numbers JR/08/13/2 rev B and JR/08/13/3 rev B received 5th March 2014;

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

 

 

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.