; Whole Doc
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Whole Doc

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 4

  • pg 1
									OFFICERS REPORT: DELEGATED APPLICATIONS

REFERENCE: CPT/363/11/FUL

Date of Expiry of Application: 5th September 2011

Date passed to KPF: 23rd August 2011

Site Address: 71 Sherwood Crescent, Benfleet

Applicant’s Name: Mr James Humphreys

Site Description:
The application property is a semi-detached bungalow on the north side of Sherwood Crescent,
some 80m east of the junction with Southfield Drive. It stands on a plot with a frontage of some
9m and maximum depth of some 46m.

To the west is the attached bungalow at No.69. To east is another pair of semi-detached
bungalows. To the north are the rear aspects of properties in Central Close.

Description of Proposed Development:
Permission is sought for the extension of this property to the rear and into the roofspace, to
provide two bedrooms at first floor and a new kitchen diner, utility room and bathroom at ground
floor level.

It is proposed to change the hipped roof of the property to a gable end and erect a flat roofed
dormer of some 5.4m wide and 1.6m tall to the rear roof slope. To the front, a pitched roofed
dormer of some 1.1m wide and 1.5m tall with a pitched roof would be added, together with a roof
light.

The proposed single storey rear extension would be some 4.5m deep and 8.3m wide with a flat
roof to a height of some 2.5m.

The proposed materials are generally to match the existing building; however it is proposed to
use western red Cedar horizontal cladding to the face of the rear dormer and in a decorative
panel above the entrance door to the side.

Relevant History: None

Local Plan Allocation: Residential

Relevant Policies:
Current Local Plan
EC2
H17
Appendix 12
SPG28
SPG3
SPG4
SPG8
SPG12
T8

Emerging Core Strategy
DC1
DC2




                                               1
OFFICERS REPORT: DELEGATED APPLICATIONS

REFERENCE: CPT/363/11/FUL

Consultation Responses:
No statutory consultation undertaken

Neighbour notification – No representations received




Evaluation of Proposal:
The general thrust of Policy EC2 of the current Local Plan and Policy DC1 of the emerging Core
Strategy is that proposals should achieve a high standard of design and be in sympathy with
their surroundings, having regard to all elements of the local design context. Policy H17 of the
current Local Plan and Policy DC1 of the emerging Core Strategy require proposals to have
regard to design guidance within Appendix 12 of the Local Plan.

Within Appendix 12 to the current Local Plan, Policy H17 SPG28 deals with rooms in the roof
and dormer windows. It states that any projecting walls or windows shall respect the scale, form
and character of the existing dwelling and surrounding area. Substantial roof verges are to be
maintained to the sides of and below any projecting dormer. Where possible, front and side
dormers should have pitched roofs. Proposals that would destroy the symmetry of a semi-
detached pair will be refused.

This pair of bungalows, Nos. 69 and 71, currently do not have any roof alterations, both
displaying their original hipped roof form. The change to a gabled rather than a hipped roof on
one side would lead to an unbalancing effect on the pair of properties, which the design
guidance seeks to avoid. This unbalancing would be further exacerbated by the provision of a
dormer window to the front roof slope, which would also be uncharacteristic of the surrounding
area and at odds with the appearance of the general streetscene, which is of bungalows with no
dormers to their front elevations. Were the proposal permitted, the bungalows would look
unbalanced and out of place in relation to their surroundings, at variance with the established
character of the area and to the detriment of the streetscene.

The proposed rear and front dormer and roof light in themselves are considered to be of
satisfactory design and appearance, however, this is insufficient to redeem the proposal entirely
and an objection is raised under Policies EC2 and H17 SPG28 of the current Local Plan and
Policy DC1 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Policy H17 SPG3 seeks to prevent excessive projections beyond the rear building line. The
proposed single storey rear extension would project some 4.5m from the rear wall of the
property. In relation to the adjoining property at No.69, this may seem a somewhat deep
projection. However, with a flat roof and at a modest height of 2.5m, it is not considered that this
would be unduly obtrusive or dominant towards the adjacent neighbour. It should also be noted
that a roof overhang of some 0.6m is provided to the rear elevation, however this would have
limited visual impact when viewed from the adjacent property and it is not considered it would
make the proposed extension unacceptably dominant when viewed from that side.

It should be noted that the proposed rear extension would not extend as far into the plot as an
existing shed which is to be removed as part of the proposal.




                                                 2
OFFICERS REPORT: DELEGATED APPLICATIONS

REFERENCE: CPT/363/11/FUL

In relation to the other neighbour at No.73, the proposed extension would project approximately
4m beyond the rear elevation of that dwelling. Again, with a flat roof at the height proposed, and
taking into account that there would be some 0.8m isolation space provided between the
extension and the side boundary of the site, it is not considered that the proposed rear extension
would be unduly obtrusive or dominant toward the adjacent property on this side. The extension
would in any case be partially screened by an existing garage within the curtilage of No. 73.

Other neighbouring properties are too remote to be significantly affected by the proposal.
Therefore, no objection is raised under Policy H17 SPG3 of the current Local Plan or Policy DC1
of the emerging Core Strategy.

Policy H17 SPG4 deals with privacy and overlooking. A distance of 9.1m is required to be
provided between first floor windows and the boundary of the site. The proposed rear facing first
floor windows would be provided with some 30m of isolation space to the rear boundary of the
site which is acceptable in policy terms and would not cause loss of privacy to properties at the
rear of the site. The proposed windows to the front would overlook the street which is within the
public realm and would not cause loss of privacy to properties opposite. No objection is therefore
raised to the proposal under Policy H17 SPG4 of the current Local Plan or Policy DC1 of the
emerging Core Strategy.

Policy H17 SPG8 requires a minimum isolation space of 1m to be provided either side of
properties on plots on 10.15m in width or greater, at ground and first floor level, into which there
shall be no projection. An exception to this can be made on plots of less than 10.15m in width,
on one side, at ground floor level only, in order to provide a garage.

The proposed single storey rear extension providing kitchen, utility and bathroom
accommodation would extend beyond the flank wall of the property on the east side and would
be sited some 0.8m from the side boundary of the site. This is below the distance specified in
design guidance. However, the purpose of the guidance is to prevent terracing of properties and
to maintain adequate settings to dwellings when viewed in the streetscene. The proposed
extension would be located to the rear of the dwelling and would not affect the 2m isolation
space that the property currently has between its flank wall and the boundary of the site at the
front of the site, where the setting of the dwelling is most readily seen. The provision of the rear
extension, by reason of the deep setting, is not considered to adversely impact on the setting of
the dwelling, make it appear cramped or cause visual harm to the area. Accordingly there is no
objection on the basis of Policy H17 SPG8 of the current Local Plan or Policy DC1 of the
emerging Core Strategy.

Policy H17 SPG12 requires an amenity area of 93m2 to be provided for properties with more
than one bedroom. The property would have a retained rear garden area far in excess of this
requirement. No objection is therefore raised to the proposal under Policy H17 SPG12 of the
current Local Plan or Policy DC1 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Policy T8 of the current Local Plan and Policy DC2 of the emerging Core Strategy require off-
street parking to be provided in accordance with county parking standards which require a
minimum of two spaces to be provided for properties with two or more bedrooms. Garages will
only be counted as a parking space where they achieve internal dimensions of 3m by 7m.

The property as extended would have three bedrooms. Two off-street parking spaces should
therefore be provided. The property currently has access to one off-street parking space on a
single width tarmac driveway. The area to the side of the property cannot be used for parking
purposes as it is only 2m wide. However, if permission were granted, it would be possible to
impose a condition requiring the driveway and vehicle crossover to the front of the property to be



                                                 3
OFFICERS REPORT: DELEGATED APPLICATIONS

REFERENCE: CPT/363/11/FUL

widened to accommodate the off-street parking of two vehicles. Subject to such a condition there
would be no objection to the proposal under Policy T8 of the current Local Plan or Policy DC2 of
the emerging Core Strategy.

I have taken all other matters raised by interested parties into consideration, but none are
sufficient to outweigh the considerations that led to the following:

Recommendation: REFUSAL, for the following reasons:

1. The proposed alteration of the roof to a gable end and the provision of a dormer window to
   the front elevation of the property would give this pair of bungalows an asymmetrical
   appearance, which would be detrimental to the streetscene and would be out of character
   with the surrounding area generally. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H17 SPG28
   of the adopted Local Plan and Policy DC1 of the emerging Core Strategy.




                                     31.08.11




                                                4

								
To top