REPORT SUMMARY

 

REFERENCE NO -  14/0725
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of a two storey side and rear extension.
ADDRESS 106, Abingdon Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME16 9EH
RECOMMENDATION - Approve subject to conditions
SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION The principle of ancillary residential development within the curtilage is acceptable.  It is considered that this proposal would not have a significant visual impact or cause any detrimental harm to neighbouring amenity.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE The recommendation is contrary to the views of Barming Parish Council and committee consideration has been requested.
WARD Barming		PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Barming		APPLICANT Mrs Stedman AGENT DDH Design
DECISION DUE DATE 25/06/14		PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE 25/06/14		OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE 03/06/14
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining sites):
App No	Proposal		Decision		Date

 

88/1081

First floor extension

Approved with conditions

Oct 1988

 

 

MAIN REPORT

 

1.0       DESCRIPTION OF SITE

 

1.01   The application site is a detached dwelling, located within the urban area in the parish of Barming.  The dwelling occupies a corner plot at a bend in the Abingdon Road.  There is a banked grass verge with established trees opposite the site which forms a buffer to Tonbridge Road to the south, although the property remains viewable from Tonbridge Road. The dwelling has a detached flat roof double garage to its eastern side with associated driveway. 

 

1.02   The locality is made up of a variety of dwellings comprising detached, semi-detached and link-detached properties.  Whilst there is a general similarity to their materials, the surrounding dwellings do vary in form and a number have been extended during their lifetime.

 

2.0    PROPOSAL

 

2.01   The application involves the erection of a two storey side and rear extension. This would be sited to the eastern side of the dwelling and would measure approximately 5.5m in width to the front. This would increase to 5.750m to the rear.  The extension would adjoin the existing garage and would extend approximately 8m in depth.  The extension would have a hipped roof design with an eaves height and ridge height of approximately 4.8m and 6.8m respectively.

 

2.02   The application proposes additional living space to the dwelling in order to provide annexe accommodation and would link internally to the dwelling on the ground floor.

 

3.0    SUMMARY INFORMATION

 

 

	Existing	Proposed
Site Area (ha)
Approximate Ridge Height (m)		6.8m
Approximate Eaves Height (m)		4.8m
Approximate Depth (m)		8m
Approximate Width (m)		5.5m to 5.750m
No. of Storeys		2
Net Floor Area
Parking Spaces

 

4.0    POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

 

Development Plan: Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000

Supplementary Planning Documents: Maidstone Borough Council Residential Extensions SPD 2009

Government Guidance: The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

 

6.0    LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

 

Four Neighbour representations have been received raising a number of issues including the scale of the development, its visual impact upon the area and stating it is capable of being used as a separate dwelling.

 

7.0    CONSULTATIONS

 

Barming Parish Council - Raises objections with the following comments:-

 

“BPC acknowledges that the revised roof lines of the proposed extensions appear to conform to, and be more in keeping with, the street scene. However, BPC remains deeply concerned about the amendments and still recommends refusal on the following grounds:

 

1. That MBC has accepted these crude, outline sketches as valid amended plans is deeply worrying because their inadequacy and omission of any detail leaves the application as amended, wide open to any sort of re-arrangements, additions and designs such as a front door and a back door to facilitate a separate unit; elevations potentially unacceptable in terms of local amenity, local character / design, leading to detrimental visual impact;

 

2. Only the sketch of the front elevation indicates that there are windows, that they might be in keeping with the main house, and that there will be no front door. None of the other outline sketches of elevations give any such detail;

 

3. There is no indication of internal layouts required to demonstrate that the side and rear extensions are annexed to and/or subordinate to the main house;

 

4. The sketched amendments appear to have increased the size of the additional accommodation, potentially dominating the main house and effectively causing overdevelopment of the site.

 

5. The phrase with separate entrance has not been removed from the description of the application; therefore the potential for the additional accommodation to become a separate unit remains intact.

 

If MBC is minded to approve the sketches contrary to the views of BPC, then BPC wishes the application to be reported to Committee.”

 

9.0    CONSIDERATIONS

 

          Principle of Development

 

9.01   In general, extensions to dwellings are acceptable in principle within the urban area, however, they should be appropriate in their relationship to the host dwelling, their scale and visual impact, impact upon neighbouring amenity and impact upon parking.  This principle set out within Policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000.

 

9.02   Further guidance is provided within the council’s Residential Extensions SPD 2009 which states in section 4.21:-

 

“Development on corner sites should respond sensitively to the character of the adjoining street created by a common building line, the scale, form, and architectural features of development and the spaces around buildings. Side windows which overlook the street should be created.”

 

9.03   Therefore, the principle of this development is acceptable, it is then a case of the suitability of the proposal in its impact and design which will be assessed below.

 

          Visual Impact

 

9.04   The proposed extension would be set back by approximately 3.1m from the closest front wall and approximately 6m from the foremost part of the dwelling due to its stepped form. The extension would also have matching eaves height to the existing dwelling and a set down ridge height of approximately 0.6m.  These features assist in creating a subservient relationship to the host dwelling. Whilst I acknowledge that the extension is of a significant width, I do not consider on balance that the extension would be significantly overwhelming to the existing dwelling by virtue of these design characteristics.

 

9.05   In terms of the impact upon the street scene, the two storey extension would be prominently located, by virtue of its corner location; it would be behind the building line of the north section of Abingdon Road.  The extension would also be some 3.8m from the highway at its closest point ensuring some sense of openness is retained to this corner.

 

9.06   The flank wall of the extension would not include any windows due to the internal layout, although it would have ground floor and first floor recessed panels which would break up this elevation.  On balance, this elevation is largely screened by the existing garage in any case and therefore to my mind, the extension would not appear significantly dominant or visually harmful within the streetscene.

 

          Residential Amenity

 

9.07   I do not consider that any neighbouring property would experience a significant loss of light, overshadowing, outlook or overbearing impact, notwithstanding the heights of the extensions. This is due to the separation between the proposed extension and No104 to the north together with the siting of the extension within the residential plot.

 

          Highways

 

9.08   In terms of the highways impact, the existing double garage would be retained together with its associated driveway.  This would continue to provide sufficient parking provision for this property ensuring there would not be any significant harm to highways safety.

 

          Landscaping

 

9.09   With regard to landscaping, I acknowledge that some border planting would be lost to facilitate this development; however, some significant planting would remain including a tree and border hedging to the front. This would be sufficient to soften the frontage to this development.

 

Other Matters

 

9.10   Due to the maintained nature of this urban area residential site and its location between existing built form in the dwelling and garage, I do not consider there would be any significant ecological impact as a result of this development.

 

10.0  CONCLUSION

 

10.01 Taking all of the above into account, it is concluded, on balance, that the proposal complies with Development Plan Policy and I therefore recommend approval.

 

11.0  RECOMMENDATION – GRANT Subject to the following Conditions:-

 

 

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 shall not commence until, written details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building(s) hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be constructed using the approved materials;

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

 

3. The additional accommodation to the principal dwelling hereby permitted shall not be sub-divided, separated or altered in any way so as to create a separate self-contained unit;

 

Reason: Its use as a separate unit without adequate parking or turning space and adequate amenity space would result in an unsatisfactory relationship with the principal dwelling.

 

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

 

Plan numbers ddh/14/363/002/A, ddh/14/363/004/A, ddh/14/363/006/A, ddh/14/363/007/A, ddh/14/363/008/A received 25^th June 2014.

 

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

 

 

INFORMATIVES

 

N/A

 

 

Case Officer: Kevin Hope

 

NB     For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant           Public Access pages on the council’s website.         The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.