«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 ...»
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 11/01770/FULL6 Ward:
Hayes And Coney Hall
Address : 21 Hawthorndene Road Hayes Bromley
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
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
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.