WWW.THESES.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Theses, dissertations, documentation
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 |

«Application No : 11/01770/FULL6 Ward: Hayes And Coney Hall Address : 21 Hawthorndene Road Hayes Bromley BR2 7DY OS Grid Ref: E: 539962 N: 165783 ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 11/01770/FULL6 Ward:

Hayes And Coney Hall

Address : 21 Hawthorndene Road Hayes Bromley

BR2 7DY

OS Grid Ref: E: 539962 N: 165783

Applicant : Mr Andrew Sargent Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Single storey rear extension. Two rear main roof dormers. Conversion of garage into habitable room to include bay window to front

Key designations:

Adj Area of Special Res. Character Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding Tree Preservation Order Proposal

• The application seeks planning approval for a single storey rear extension, two rear dormer extensions and the conversion of the existing garage to habitable accommodation, which would include a bay window.

• The proposed single storey rear extension will project in depth by 2.925 metres, will span the width of the host dwellinghouse measuring approximately 6 metres in width, with a maximum height for the flat roof measuring approximately 3 metres. The roof lantern will add an additional

0.5 metres in height.

• The rear dormer extensions will replace an existing dormer which each property along this terrace appear to have, indicating that the existing dormer is an original feature. The proposed dormer extensions will each measure approximately 1.8 metres in width, approximately 1.3 metres in height with a flat roof and will project in depth by approximately 0.8 metres.

• The existing garage is to be converted into habitable accommodation and used as a dining room. This will incorporate the provision of a bay window to the front elevation which will be suspended above ground by approximately

1.05 metres, projecting forwards by approximately 0.65 metres.

Location The application site is located on the western side of Hawthorndene Road, and hosts a mid-terrace property. Hawthorndene Road is on a slope therefore the application site is situated on land lower than Number 19 and on land higher than Number 23.

Comments from Local Residents A number of responses were received from local residents.

The following comments relate to the proposed single storey rear extension and

can be summarised as follows:

• land levels differ and the impact upon neighbouring property on lower level will be greater;

• overall height of rear extension on the basis of differing land levels is therefore in excess of 4 metres;

• rear extension will affect daylight and sunlight afforded to neighbouring properties;

• amenity of neighbours is not being respected;

• a sunlight / daylight surveyshould have been completed as part of the application;

• floor to ceiling height of existing ground floor level is particularly generous, it is not necessary to match this in the extension to the detriment of adjoining owners;

• plans do not include requirements of SPG No 1, 2.2;

• roof line of proposed rear extension is set higher than the sills of the windows in neighbour’s first floor principal reception room, and excludes the lantern roof light;

• not possible to build rear extension without access to neighbouring properties;

• development likely to adversely affect Scots Pine in applicants rear garden which is subject to TPO;

• light emitted from roof lantern will cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties;

• plans do not accurately show the location of the pine trees;

• overdevelopment of the site – rear extension would almost double the original design size of the kitchen plus dining room;

• no neighbour consultation prior to having the plans drawn up;

• size of rear extension appears inappropriate in relation to the size of the rear garden;

• if approved, could set a precedent for future similar applications.

The following comments relate to the proposed conversion of existing garage to

habitable room and bay window and can be summarised as follows:

• proposed oriel bay window is not in keeping with the host dwelling or adjacent buildings and areas;

• projecting forward of the existing building line is in contravention of policy;

• loss of an existing off street garage car parking space will add to the burden on an already busy road;

• do not object to converting the garage internally, however do object to the introduction of a bay window;

• the bay window will protrude from the plane frontage brick walls ‘building line’ and stretching close to the front edge of the 1st floor balcony;

• the terrace comprise very well designed and compact group of properties – replacement windows and new driveway surfaces have not affected the overall architectural character and appearance of the terrace;

• replacing existing garage door with a bay window will look totally out of place and be detrimental to the overall appearance of the frontages of these town houses.

The applicant provided further information following receipt of objections from neighbours, including that there is an existing rear extension at Number 15 which Members should be aware of.





Comments from Consultees The Council Highways Engineers stated that whilst the proposal will result in the loss of one garage space, there is space within the curtilage of the site which can be utilised. As such, no objection was raised with regard to the conversion of the garage to habitable room.

Planning Considerations In terms of the protected pine tree and protected oak tree located in the rear garden of the application site it is considered that these would not be detrimentally affected by the proposed extension.

Planning History In 2004, permission was refused under ref. 04/00036 for a retrospective application for timber decking and boundary fencing. The application was refused for the

following reason:

The proposal would due to elevated height, its size, siting and amenities that the occupiers of adjoining properties might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy by reason of visual impact, loss of prospect and loss of privacy thereby contrary to Policy H.3 and E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies H8 and BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development (September 2002).

Following this, permission was then refused under ref. 04/03171 for a retrospective

application for timber decking and boundary fencing for the following reason:

The proposed development would constitute an unacceptable form of development, detrimental to the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties contrary to Policy E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

The second refusal was taken to The Inspectorate and an Appeal was lodged. The Inspector found that planning permission was not required, the decking area could be built under ‘permitted development’ tolerances and the Appeal and subsequent Enforcement Notice were quashed.

In terms of the single storey rear extension at Number 15, it can be seen that this was approved in 1966.

Conclusions Members may consider that the application can be considered in three separate parts. The first matter to be discussed are the two rear dormer extensions which will be replacing the existing single, wider dormer extension. From looking at the plans Members may consider that the two rear dormers will be in keeping with the style of the host dwelling and will not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the property nor the amenities of the residents of neighbouring properties.

Members may consider that the proposed rear dormer extensions are subservient to the main dwelling, will be built in line with the first floor windows and as such will not dominate the rear elevation of the host dwelling or detract from the existing character.

The second issue Members may wish to consider is the conversion of the existing garage to habitable accommodation. Generally the conversion of a garage can be done under building regulations alone, provided there are no restrictions on ‘permitted development’ rights. Having looked at the history of this property, it can be seen that there are no such restrictions. However, the introduction of a bay window would not constitute permitted development as it would extend beyond a wall which fronts a highway and forms the principle elevation of the original dwellinghouse. As such, Members need to consider whether the introduction of a bay window to the front elevation of this property would enhance or detract from the character of this building and indeed the row of terraces that it is located within.

Neighbours have raised objection to this part of the scheme on the basis that the loss of the garage will result in more on-street parking, however Members should note that the Council Highways Engineers have not raised objection with regard to the scheme on the basis that there remains space within the curtilage of the site for vehicles to be parked.

It is clear that there is a general level of uniformity along the road, with this particular row of terraced townhouses having similar appearances from the streetscene. Therefore Members may wish to consider carefully whether the introduction of a bay window to the front elevation will complement the scale, form and layout of the adjacent buildings and areas, or whether it is considered to detract from the existing streetscene.

The third matter for Members to consider is the proposed single storey rear extension. The application site has a natural slope from the rear of the back garden down towards the rear elevation of the house, but there is also a natural slope from the top of Hawthorndene Road down to the junction with Holland Close, graduating down across the rear gardens from Number 15 to Number 25.

The extension will project in depth by approximately 2.9 metres which Members may consider is not excessive and is in-line with the tolerances of ‘permitted development’ rights. The proposed structure will measure 3 metres in height with a flat roof, and a roof lantern above which would increase this part of the structure to a maximum height of approximately 3.5 metres. However as the land levels differ along the rear gardens of the properties that form this row of terraced properties, the land level of the adjoining property to the north-west, Number 23, is set below the application site by approximately 1 metre. This inevitably means that the overall height of the proposed rear extension, when considered from ground level at Number 23, would be 4 metres to the top of the roof and in excess of this to the top of the roof lantern.

In terms of the single storey rear extension at Number 15, it can be seen that this was approved in 1966. The applicant has used the extension at Number 15 to draw comparisons to their proposal. However, Members will note that the approval was granted over 40 years ago prior to the current Planning Policies that the application would now be considered against being adopted, as such direct comparisons may not be appropriate in this instance.

Members may find that in a situation where the land levels between the application site and adjoining sites are the same, this form of single storey rear extension being proposed would be acceptable. However in these circumstances, where the application site is located on land approximately 1 metre higher than the adjoining property to the north-west, Members may consider that the proposed extension by reason of its height and flat roof, may have an overbearing impact upon the amenities of the residents of the adjoining property, resulting in loss of outlook, loss of light and prospect. A judgement needs to be made about the whether the impact is unduly harmful. Accordingly, Members will need to take account of the plans that have been submitted for this site and the comments made by residents during the consultation period.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 11/01770, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED

–  –  –

Reasons for granting permission:

In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following

policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions

The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following:

(a) the appearance of the development in the street scene;

(b) the appearance of the development in relation to the character of the area;

(c) the relationship of the development to the adjacent properties;

(d) the character of development in the surrounding area;

(e) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties;

(f) the light and outlook of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties;

(g) the privacy of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties;

(h) the housing policies of the development plan;

(i) and having regard to all other matters raised including concerns from neighbours.

D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the

following grounds are suggested:

1 The proposed single storey rear extension would, due to it’s elevated position in relation to the adjoining property along with the height, size and siting of the structure, have a detrimental impact upon the amenities that the occupiers of adjoining properties might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy by reason of visual impact, loss of prospect and loss of privacy, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The design of the proposed oriel bay window to the front elevation of the dwellinghouse is considered to be out of keeping with the character of the host building and general character of the streetscene, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.



Pages:   || 2 |


Similar works:

«TERMS AND CONDITIONS – CRUISES 2015-2016 The purchase of cruise packages, cruises, flight and hotel rooms (hereinafter referred to as the “Services”) offered by Transat Tours Canada Inc. operating as Transat (hereinafter “TRANSAT”) constitutes a contract between you (the “Customer” or “Customers”) and TRANSAT, which includes namely the terms and conditions described hereinafter. Please ensure that you carefully read and fully understand these terms and conditions prior to...»

«Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 153 (2014) 298 – 307 AicQoL2014Kota Kinabalu AMER International Conference on Quality of Life The Pacific Sutera Hotel, Sutera Harbour, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia 4-5 January 2014 “Quality of Life in the Built & Natural Environment” Identity of Malay Garden Design to be Promoted as the Cultural Tourism Product in Malaysia Ahmad Zamil Zakaria*, Ismail Hafiz Salleh, Mohd Sabrizaa Abd Rashid...»

«c 2006 International Press ASIAN J. MATH. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 165–492, June 2006 001 ´ A COMPLETE PROOF OF THE POINCARE AND GEOMETRIZATION CONJECTURES – APPLICATION OF THE HAMILTON-PERELMAN THEORY OF THE RICCI FLOW∗ HUAI-DONG CAO† AND XI-PING ZHU‡ Abstract. In this paper, we give a complete proof of the Poincar´ and the geometrization e conjectures. This work depends on the accumulative works of many geometric analysts in the past thirty years. This proof should be considered as the...»

«This announcement appears for information purposes only and does not constitute an invitation or offer to acquire, purchase or subscribe for the CBBCs described below. Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited and The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “Stock Exchange”) take no responsibility for the contents of this announcement, make no representation as to its accuracy or completeness and expressly disclaim any liability whatsoever for any loss howsoever arising from or in reliance...»

«BANK OF GREECE MARKET CONDUCT, PRICE INTERDEPENDENCE AND EXCHANGE RATE PASS-THROUGH Sophocles N. Brissimis Theodora S. Kosma Working Paper No. 51 December 2006 BANK OF GREECE Economic Research Department – Special Studies Division 21, Ε. Venizelos Avenue GR-102 50 Αthens Τel: +30210-320 3610 Fax: +30210-320 2432 www.bankofgreece.gr Printed in Athens, Greece at the Bank of Greece Printing Works. All rights reserved. Reproduction for educational and non-commercial purposes is permitted...»

«INSTALLATION OPERATION MAINTENANCE MANUAL AE-Series, MSC-Series Solar Collectors Alternate Energy Technologies, LLC. 1345 Energy Cove Court · Green Cove Springs, FL 32043 PH: 800-874-2190 · Fax: 904-529-9837 · Email: info@aetsolar.com (this page left blank intentionally) Introduction The installation of this solar collector should only be performed by personnel qualified in plumbing and roofing. The installation should comply with local building codes, permits and OSHA requirements. The...»

«Andrews University SEMINARY SIUDIES Autumn 1998 Number 2 Volume 36 Andrews University Press ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES The Journal of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary of Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104, U.S.A. Editor: NANCY J. VYHMEISTER Associate Editor: JERRY MOON Book Review Editor: JERRY MOON Consulting Editors: ROBERT M. JOHNSTON, JON PAULIEN, RANDALL W. YOUNKER Copy Editor: LEONA G. RUNNING Book Review Assistant: JOSE E. GUZMAN Circulation...»

«Questions about slopes of modular forms. Kevin Buzzard November 26, 2002 Abstract We formulate a conjecture which predicts, in many cases, the precise padic valuations of the eigenvalues of the Hecke operator Tp acting on spaces of classical modular forms. The conjecture has very concrete consequences in the classical theory, but can also be thought of as saying that there is a lot of unexplained symmetry in many of the Coleman-Mazur eigencurves. Introduction Let N ≥ 1 be a fixed integer,...»

«Associação Nipo-Brasileira de Goiás Fátima Alcídia Costa Mota © ANBG TODOS OS DIREITOS RESERVADOS Proibida a reprodução total ou parcial. (Sanções previstas na Lei 9.610, de 20/06/98). Projeto gráfico, diagramação e arte final Cláudia Hiromi Okido / Eduardo Nery Coodenação editorial e pesquisa Cecília Noriko Ito Saito Revisão Cecília Noriko Ito Saito Impressão e acabamento Gráfica e Editora Bandeirante Ltda. Dados Internacionais de Catalogação na Publicação (CIP)...»

«Volume 21, Number 2, June 2015 Copyright © 2015 Society for Music Theory Composing Declamation: Notated Meter Changes in Brahms’s Lieder * Wing Lau NOTE: The examples for the (text-only) PDF version of this item are available online at: http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.15.21.2/mto.15.21.2.lau.php KEYWORDS: rhythm and meter, notated meter change, Brahms, Lieder, text-music relations, analysis and performance ABSTRACT: This article offers a new perspective on the function and expressive effect...»

«Factsheet – Collective expulsions of aliens June 2016 This Factsheet does not bind the Court and is not exhaustive Collective expulsions of aliens Article 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights: “Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited”. “Collective expulsion” = any measure compelling aliens, as a group, to leave a country, except where such a measure is taken on the basis of a reasonable and objective...»

«Physician Quality 2014 Reporting System FAQ Do the 2014 PQRS reporting requirements have you totally overwhelmed and confused? With Covisint PQRS you can confidently earn the final.05% incentive payment AND avoid the 2016 payment adjustment of -2.0%. Our PQRS experts have created this document to address the most common questions. Title of Document Questions Understanding PQRS 3 Q: What is the Physician Quality Reporting System? Q: What does this program have to do with improving patient and...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.theses.xlibx.info - Theses, dissertations, documentation

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.