Reference: 15/06961/RCU Received: 13th November 2015 Accepted: 17th November 2015 Ward: Coppetts Expiry 12th January 2016

Transcription

1 Location 91 Manor Drive London N20 0XD Reference: 15/06961/RCU Received: 13th November 2015 Accepted: 17th November 2015 Ward: Coppetts Expiry 12th January 2016 Applicant: Mr Christos Papadopoulos Proposal: Retention of rear dormer window (RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPLICATION) Recommendation: Refuse 1 The rear dormer, by reason of its size, siting, design and bulk, represent an overlydominant and disproportionate addition to the roof of the property, which detracts from the character and appearance of the application site contrary to policies CS1 and CS5 of the Barnet Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Barnet Development Management Policies DPD (2012), policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2015) and the guidance contained in the Barnet Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013). Informative(s): 1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, the Council takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, focused on solutions. To assist applicants in submitting development proposals, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has produced planning policies and written guidance to guide applicants when submitting applications. These are all available on the Council's website. A pre-application advice service is also offered. The applicant did not seek to engage with the LPA prior to the submission of this application through the established formal pre-application advice service. In accordance with paragraph 189 of the NPPF, the applicant is encouraged to utilise this service prior to the submission of any future formal planning applications, in order to engage pro-actively with the LPA to discuss possible solutions to the reasons for refusal.

2 Officer s Assessment 1. Site Description The application site contains a semi-detached property, located on the east side of Manor Drive. The vicinity of the application site is residential in character. The site is not within a conservation area and is not a listed building. 2. Site History Reference: 15/04251/191 Decision: Unlawful Decision Date: 17 August 2015 Description: Extension to roof including rear dormer window Reference: B/04777/13 Decision: Approved subject to conditions Decision Date: 16 December 2013 Description: Formation of side dormer window, and alterations to existing rear dormer window. Reference: B/01551/13 Decision: Refused Decision Date: 26 June 2013 Description: Retention of roof extension including rear dormer and loft conversion, 3no. front roof-lights, and proposed new Juliet balcony to rear dormer. Reference: B/01211/13 Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 25 April 2013 Description: Reduction of rear dormer and alterations to rear roof slope. Reference: APP/N5090/C/11/ (relating to ENF/00670/10/B) Decision: Split Decision (dismissed in insofar as it concerns the dormer window and the enforcement notice) Decision Date: 22 Oct 2012 Description: Without planning permission a rear dormer roof extension. Reference: ENF/00670/10/B Status: Notice issued Decision Date: 17 November 2011 Description: Without planning permission, the construction of a rear dormer roof extension. Reference: B/05090/10 Decision: Refused - Appealed - Dismissed (APP/N5090/D/11/ /06/11) Decision Date: 14 February 2011

3 Description: Retention of roof alterations and rear dormer window which facilitate a loft conversion. Reference: B/03285/09 Decision: Approved subject to conditions Decision Date: 20 November 2009 Description: Extension to roof including rear dormer window and raising height of ridge, to facilitate a loft conversion. First floor side extension. 3. Proposal The application seeks retrospective planning permission in order to retain a rear dormer. The subject dormer measures approximately 6 metres in width, 2.3 metres in height and 3.1 metres in depth. As outlined above, the application site has a long planning history relating to the subject dormer. Planning permission was granted in 2009 under planning permission B/03285/09. The resulting works did not comply with the permission as the rear roof dormer extension was found to be significantly larger than approved. Planning application B/05090/10 was submitted to retain the larger rear dormer and this was refused by the Council on 14 February 2011 as its size, mass, bulk and design was considered an overbearing form of development detrimental to the character and appearance of the property and the locality. These planning decisions, and related enforcement action, were appealed by the applicant on two separate occasions (APP/N5090/C/11/ and APP/N5090/D/11/ ). Both appeals were dismissed. Subsequent planning applications were received relating to the rear dormer, including B/01211/13, which sought to reduce the width of the dormer. This application was withdrawn. Application B/01551/13 sought approval for further works and to retain the rear dormer which was also refused. Application B/04777/13 sought to form a side dormer window and reduce the scale of the rear dormer window. This was approved by the Council, however the alterations have not been undertaken. A lawful development certificate application was also received by Council (15/04251/191) and determined that the rear dormer as built was unlawful. 4. Public Consultation Consultation letters were sent to 2 neighbouring properties. No responses have been received in regard to this application. This application has been called in to planning committee by Cllr. Lisa Rutter for the following reasons: -The site has a chequered and lengthy planning history with a series of refusals and a current Planning Enforcement Notice. -There have been changed circumstances since the issuing of the Planning Enforcement Notice, 4 years ago including the publication of the National Planning Policy Guidance, Planning Practice Guidance, the Council's Core Strategy, the Council's new Development Management Policies and the Supplementary Planning Design Guidance. -There is some concern that the application has been pre-determined by officers in recent correspondence. -There is some substance to suggest that the scheme complies with National and Local Planning Policies. - In the circumstances, the merits of the application need to be aired and discussed in a public forum and before the planning committee in the interest of democratic decisionmaking.

4 A supporting statement was submitted by the applicant. The conclusions of this statement are listed below: -The principle of residential development is acceptable within the urban area of Friern Barnet. -The scheme has been the subject of various previous submissions/decisions and a Planning Enforcement Notice. -The scheme is now assessed against current National and Local Planning Policies and National and Local Planning Guidance all which were not in place previously, and against the character of the area which has changed over the intervening years. -On balance, the dormer is considered to integrate successfully in the rear roof slope and satisfactorily relate to the host property. -The dormer is considered to reflect the character, style and form of roof extensions in the vicinity and does not undermine the established street scene from where it is largely hidden. -The dormer does not constitute 'poor design' (NPPF. Para 64) but successfully utilises the constraints and opportunities of the site. -The proposal complies with the relevant Government Guidance and Local Plan policies 5. Planning Considerations 5.1 Policy Context National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance The determination of planning applications is made mindful of Central Government advice and the Local Plan for the area. It is recognised that Local Planning Authorities must determine applications in accordance with the statutory Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and that the planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against another. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March This is a key part of the Governments reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, and to promote sustainable growth. The NPPF states that 'good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people'. The NPPF retains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This applies unless any adverse impacts of a development would 'significantly and demonstrably' outweigh the benefits. The Mayor's London Plan 2015 The London Development Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital to It forms part of the development plan for Greater London and is recognised in the NPPF as part of the development plan. The London Plan provides a unified framework for strategies that are designed to ensure that all Londoners benefit from sustainable improvements to their quality of life. Barnet's Local Plan (2012) Barnet's Local Plan is made up of a suite of documents including the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Documents. Both were adopted in September Relevant Core Strategy Policies: CS NPPF, CS1, CS5. - Relevant Development Management Policies: DM01. The Council's approach to extensions as set out in Policy DM01 is to minimise their impact on the local environment and to ensure that occupiers of new developments as well as neighbouring occupiers enjoy a high standard of amenity. Policy DM01 states that all

5 development should represent high quality design and should be designed to allow for adequate daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook for adjoining occupiers. Supplementary Planning Documents Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013) - Sets out information for applicants to help them design an extension to their property which would receive favourable consideration by the Local Planning Authority and was the subject of separate public consultation. The SPD states that large areas of Barnet are characterised by relatively low density suburban housing with an attractive mixture of terrace, semi-detached and detached houses. The Council is committed to protecting, and where possible enhancing the character of the borough's residential areas and retaining an attractive street scene. - States that extensions should normally be subordinate to the original house, respect the original building and should not be overly dominant. Extensions should normally be consistent in regard to the form, scale and architectural style of the original building which can be achieved through respecting the proportions of the existing house and using an appropriate roof form. - In respect of amenity, states that extensions should not be overbearing or unduly obtrusive and care should be taken to ensure that they do not result in harmful loss of outlook, appear overbearing, or cause an increased sense of enclosure to adjoining properties. They should not reduce light to neighbouring windows to habitable rooms or cause significant overshadowing, and should not look out of place, overbearing or intrusive when viewed from surrounding areas. 5.2 Main issues for consideration The main issues for consideration in this case are: 1. Whether harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the existing building, the street scene and the wider locality 2. Whether harm would be caused to the living conditions of neighbouring residents 3. Financial conditions of the applicant 4. Previous policies vs current policies 5.3 Assessment of proposals 1. Whether harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the existing building, the street scene and the wider locality The Council's Residential Design Guidance SPD (2013) sets clear and detailed guidance on dormer roof extensions. Paragraph states that "dormer roof extensions should normally be subordinate features on the roof and should not occupy more than half the width and half the depth of the roof slope. The dormer extension should be set in at least 1 metre from the party wall, flank wall or chimney. Design of the dormer should reflect style and proportions of windows on the existing house. To retain the balance of the house, the dormer roof extensions should not normally be wider than the window below it. Care should be taken in the design and location of new dormers to minimise overlooking." Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy (Adopted) 2012 states that development should enhance the borough's high quality suburbs through the provision of buildings of the highest quality. Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies (Adopted) 2012 states development proposals should be based on an understanding of local characteristics. Development should preserve and enhance local character and respect the appearance, scale, mass, height and pattern of surrounding buildings.

6 Policy 7.6: Architecture of the London Plan (2015) states that development should be of highest architectural quality and should be of proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances, activates and appropriately defines public realm. The dormer measures approximately 6 metres in width. The roof of the dwelling is approximately 10 metres in width at the eaves and 6.9 metres at the ridge. Therefore, it can be said that the dormer is greater than half the width of the host building. Further, the dormer is located just 650 millimetres from the party wall of the attached property at 93 Manor Drive and sits within 0.1 metre of the chimney. Additionally, it is noted that the dormer extends right to the ridge of the set down roof component of the existing dwelling. Given the abovementioned matters, the subject dormer is considered excessive in size and scale, resulting in a disproportionate and overly dominant form of development which has been designed and sited in such a way that makes it inconsistent with the roof form of the dwelling and which detracts from the character of the property. Appeal decision APP/N5090/D/11/ concurred with this position, stating that "due to its siting, size and bulk the appeal scheme has an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property". Appeal decision APP/N5090/C/11/ also detailed similar objections, stating that "the dormer window is a large, disproportionate and dominant addition to the dwelling that makes the roof unduly bulky and prominent. As such, it unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the Appellant's property and the immediate surroundings, namely her garden and the gardens of the houses adjacent". A supporting statement included with the application highlights examples of other dormers in the vicinity of the application site, including those at 79 and 90 Manor Drive. It should be noted that both of these dormers were granted permission under permitted development legislation and as such, the Council was not in a position to impose any planning controls in both instances. Appeal decision APP/N5090/D/11/ also commented on the presence of other dormers in the surrounding area, stating that "they are significantly smaller than the appeal scheme and therefore more proportionate to the properties to which they are attached". Further, Appeal Decision APP/N5090/C/11/ stated that although dormer windows are present in the area "they are not sufficiently common to have modified the fundamental appearance of the surroundings". This same appeal did not consider that these existing dormers should be used as examples of good design that should be replicated within the vicinity of the application site. As such, the Council places limited weight on this matter. It is not considered that the subject dormer would harm the character or appearance of the wider area in this instance as it is not visible from Manor Drive. 2. Whether harm would be caused to the living conditions of neighbouring residents It is considered that the rear dormer would not adversely impact the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers to an unacceptable level. No balcony or terrace features have been incorporated into the dormer in this instance. 3. Financial conditions of the applicant The supporting statement submitted with the application outlined the financial conditions of the applicant. This statement argues that the applicant is not in a financial position to undertake any remedial works relating to the subject dormer. It is not considered that this is a material planning consideration which would outweigh the harm associated with the subject dormer. The effect of the removal of the roof extensions on the applicant was considered by the Planning Inspector when dismissing the appeal against the enforcement notice and comments as follows, "It was said that the notice would breach the rights of the

7 Appellant and her family to live peacefully at the house. However this must be weighed against the wider public interest. I have found that this proposal would harm the character and appearance of the immediate surroundings, and I am satisfied that this legitimate matter can only be adequately safeguarded by the refusal of permission. On balance, I consider that the dismissal of the appeal would not have a disproportionate effect on the Appellant. Concerns were also raised about the procedures followed by the Council and matters of fairness, but I am aware of nothing in this regard that affects the planning merits of the case". Further, the Planning Inspector stated that "Finally, while complying with the steps in the notice may cause disruption for the Appellant, her household and the neighbours, it would be for a short time only and so does not outweigh the harm identified". 4. Previous policies vs current policies In considering the appeal against the enforcement notice (ENF/00670/10/B and APP/N5090/C/11/ ), the Planning Inspector referred to Barnet Unitary Development Plan (2006) (UDP) policies D2 and H27 as well as the NPPF. It should also be noted that the above mentioned earlier decisions also related to UDP policies D2 and H27. Policy D2 relating to character stated "the Council will encourage development proposals which are based on an understanding of local characteristics, preserve or enhance local character and respect the appearance, scale, bulk, height and overall pattern of surrounding street and movement patterns and the overall character of the area". Policy H27 relating to extensions to residential properties stated that "extensions to houses, detached buildings within their grounds must harmonise with existing and neighbouring properties, maintain the appearance of the street scene and have no significant adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. They should be in keeping with the scale, proportion, design and materials of existing and neighbouring properties". The relevant part of the current Local Plan (Development Management Policies) (2012) is policy DM01 relating to the protection of Barnet's character and amenity. Part b of this policy states that "development proposals should be based on an understanding of local characteristics. Proposals should preserve or enhance local character and respect the appearance, scale, mass, height and pattern of surrounding buildings, spaces and streets". Whilst it is accepted that over the years the Council's policy documents have changed, the policies in respect of residential extensions have remained consistent and the roof extension remains unacceptable against the current policies. 6. Equality and Diversity Issues The proposal does not conflict with either Barnet Council's Equalities Policy or the commitments set in the Equality Scheme and supports the Council in meeting its statutory equality responsibilities. 7. Conclusion Having taken all material matters into account, it is considered that the dormer window has an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the application site. This application is therefore recommended for refusal.

8 Site Plan