AGENDA ITEM NO 8 PLANNING COMMITTEE 14 October 2014 APPLICATION NUMBER : CA//14/01744/FUL PROPOSAL : Extension and conversion of roof space of an existing detached bungalow together with enhanced parking and amenity space. The existing garage is to be demolished. LOCATION OF SITE : 112 Joy Lane, Whitstable, CT5 4EW APPLICATION TYPE : FULL APPLICATION DATE REGISTERED : 14 August 2014 GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE TARGET DATE : 09 October 2014 CONTACT OFFICER : David Campbell CONSERVATION AREA : NO LISTED BUILDING : NOT LISTED WARD : SEASALTER APPLICANT : Ms K Brown AGENT : Mr Keith Cattell SUMMARY: The application seeks consent for the extension and conversion of the roof space of an existing detached bungalow, with enhanced parking and amenity space and the demolition of the existing garage. The application is reported to Committee due to the number of representations received. Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would comply with the Council's policies and guidelines and would not cause unacceptable harm to the visual amenities of the area, the character and appearance of the main building or the amenities of any neighbouring property and would not prejudice highway safety. RECOMMENDATION: Grant; Subject to the conditions as set out at the end of this report. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. The application site is No. 112 Joy Lane which is situated within the Seasalter ward, in a residential area of Whitstable. The property is a single-storey bungalow with brick walls and a tiled, pitched roof.
2. The surrounding area contains a variety of building forms and designs with no particular style being predominant within the street scene. The adjoining property on the west side, No. 1 Swale Reach is a two-storey house which is sat further to the south on its plot than the application site. It is brick built with a tiled pitch roof and front balcony. The neighbour on the east side, No. 110 Joy Lane, is a chalet bungalow with rendered walls, tiled roof and large front and rear dormers. The width and height of this property when viewed from the front are larger than No. 112 and it is sited further towards the front of its site. Number 112 Joy Lane lies adjacent to the garden of No. 110 with a gap of 1.2m to the boundary. Number 2 Medina Avenue also adjoins the rear garden of the application site, with the closest part of this property located approximately 2.5m away from the boundary. 3. There is an existing timber fence along the boundaries which is complemented by trees and shrubs that have been planted along the eastern boundary with No. 2 Medina Avenue. 4. To the front of the property is the railway line and properties in Seasalter Beach, however as these are at a lower level and screened by vegetation, they are not visible from the application site. 5. The application site does not fall within a conservation area and is not part of the section of the road covered by the Joy Lane Design Guidance. There are no other designations on the property either. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6. The application seeks consent for the extension and conversion of the roof space of the existing detached bungalow together with enhanced parking and amenity space. The application also proposes the demolition of the existing garage. 7. The roof would be extended by 1.75m in height to the apex and the eaves would project out a further 0.5m from their existing position. The angle of the roof would become steeper as a result. This would allow for an area of open plan living accommodation to be provided in the roof including a lounge, kitchen, dining area and gallery. This would be lit by a triangular shaped dormer window and a total of seven rooflights. There would also be large doors and windows on the front and rear elevations at both ground and first-floor levels, a triangular shaped balcony at first-floor level and decking at ground floor (both at the front). A number of awnings would also be provided as well as a chimney and a canopy over the front door. 8. A two-storey extension would be provided at the rear and would project approximately 5.5m into the rear garden (or 6.4m to the end of the awning), would be 4.2m wide and would be sited centrally on the property. 9. The extensions would be constructed in smooth render, larch boarding and feature large amounts of glazing. The roof would be tiled in slate and powder coated aluminium would be used on the doors and windows. PLANNING HISTORY 10. There is no relevant planning history for the site. PLANNING POLICIES 11. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Section 7: Requiring good design.
12. Canterbury District Local Plan First Review (2006): BE1 - High quality designs, sustainable developments and specific design, amenity and landscape criteria to which the Council will have regard: cross-refers to SPGs. BE2 - Creation of successful public realm in new developments. C9 - KCC Vehicle & Cycle Parking Standards with local variations. 13. Canterbury District Local Plan Publication Draft (June 2014): SP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development unless material considerations indicate otherwise. T9 - Parking and cycle provision to be applied in accordance with KCC standards. DBE1 - All development to incorporate sustainable design and construction measures. DBE3 - Development proposals to be of high quality, to be assessed against specific amenity, visual, landscape, accessibility and highways criteria. DBE4 - Proposals for modern design to be of high quality. DBE10 - Alterations and extensions to buildings to respect character of the original building, to not result in overshadowing and overlooking and to avoid detriment to the amenity and character of the locality. Particular care to be given to works to heritage assets. DBE11 - Creation of successful public realm in new developments. 14. Supplementary Planning Guidance/Document Design Guidance: 'Guidelines to Control Residential Intensification'' adopted April 2008. WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS 15. Letters were sent to five neighbouring properties in Joy Lane, Medina Avenue and Florence Avenue. 16. Four objections have been received from the occupiers of neighbouring/adjoining properties, which can be summarised as follows:- 17. Material Objections: Change from bungalow to two-storey house. Out of scale and character with the area. Increase in height and at eaves level. Loss of neighbouring residential amenity. Loss of privacy (particularly from the gallery). Noise and disturbance. Light disturbance/nature conservation. The two-storey rear extension is too large (no objections to the ground floor element). The side dormer is ugly and will cause overlooking. Smoke from the chimney will discharge onto No. 1 Swale Reach including the balcony. The garage should not be demolished. Further planting will reduce light/other issues concerning boundary treatments. Poor layout/turning area. No other front balconies like this fronting Joy Lane. What constitutes discrete recycling? The void is not needed as the windows facing south are unable to be accessed. It would also link the living and bedroom areas. What considerations have been given for solar panels and water harvesting?
18. Non-Material Objections: Photographs were taken during the summer months. The documents are misleading and do not portray the application correctly. Concerns of 'why' certain aspects of the proposals are required. TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS 19. None. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS 20. The proposal raises no drainage issues. ASSESSMENT 21. The principal considerations (including whether any material planning objections have been reasonably addressed) in relation to this application are: Design quality, character and impact on the surrounding area. Impact on neighbours. Other issues. Design quality, character and impact on the surrounding area 22. The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and advises that good design is indivisible from good planning (paragraph 56) and states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (paragraph 64). 23. Policy BE1 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2006 states that the City Council will expect proposals of high quality design which respond to the objectives of sustainable development and provides a series of criteria which new development will be expected to address. This policy is reinforced by Policy DBE3 of the Draft Local Plan which states that the distinctive character, diversity and quality of the Canterbury District will be promoted, protected and enhanced through high quality, inclusive, design which reinforces and positively contributes to its local context creating attractive, inspiring and safe places. Draft Policy DBE4 states, proposals for new modern design will only be granted where the building design is of high quality. 24. The proposal would add to the bulk, mass and height of the roof as well as a two-storey rear extension which would represent a large increase in size and floor area when compared to the existing dwelling. The existing property is of no architectural merit and appears small in scale when viewed within its context. It is considered that extensions of this size are acceptable and enable the resultant dwelling to appear more comparable in size to its neighbours when viewed from the street. The extended dwelling would be no higher than the properties to either side of it. 25. The proposal has not been designed to replicate or copy any of the existing styles in the immediate area but instead adopts a modern design approach through the incorporation of unique features, innovative use of materials and large amounts of glazing. This approach is supported. 26. The two-storey rear extension is at the upper limits of what is normally deemed to be acceptable, however given that it would not project significantly past the respective building lines of No. 1 Swale Reach or No. 2 Medina Avenue, there are no objections in
principle or on the grounds of character. The large sections of glazing are also considered to be acceptable and whilst no other examples of similar extensions exist in the area, it is considered that this would not be a justifiable reason to refuse consent. There are also no objections to the provision of a gallery. 27. The external appearance, use of materials and design features such as the side dormer would be unique in the surrounding area, however they are considered to constitute high quality modern design in an appropriate location and as such are considered to meet the requirements of Policy DBE4 of the draft Local Plan. The raising of the roof would increase its visual impact on the surrounding area; however it is considered that with the incorporation of glazed sections and inventive use of materials, this would enhance the appearance of the host dwelling and provide visual interest to the street scene. It is considered that the existing building does not provide this interest at the moment. 28. The first-floor front balcony, whilst unusual in shape and siting, is also considered to be acceptable and would add further interest to the proposals. Surrounding properties such as Nos. 1 and 2 Swale Reach have first-floor seating areas at the front, so the concept of a raised amenity area is not out of character in principle. There are also no objections to the side gate, bin enclosure or the canopy over the front door which remains on the side elevation. 29. There are also no objections to the loss of the garage or to the introduction of parking spaces at the front or side of the dwelling. 30. It is therefore considered that the proposal would constitute high quality modern design, represent an improvement in the appearance of the existing building and would be compliant with local policy as well as the aims and objectives of the NPPF. Impact on neighbours 31. Policy BE1 of the adopted Local Plan states in part (i) that the Council will have regard to the privacy and amenity of the existing environment. Policy DBE3 of the Draft Local Plan states that the Council will consider in part (f) the privacy and amenity of neighbouring buildings and future occupiers (including overshadowing, outlook and sunlight). 32. It is acknowledged that the increase in the height of the building and increased width at eaves level would have an impact on the garden of No. 110 Joy Lane which directly adjoins the application site. However due to the pitch of the proposed roof and the already close proximity of the existing building, it is not considered that this impact would be significant enough to constitute a reason to refuse the application. Given the position and siting of No. 1 Swale Reach towards the rear of its site, it is not considered that the increase in height would adversely affect this neighbour. Number 2 Medina Avenue is orientated to face away from the application site and as such the increased roof is not considered to cause any loss of neighbouring residential amenity either. 33. The two-storey rear extension would project slightly further forward than the rear elevation of No. 1 Swale Reach, but with only one obscure glazed window on the affected elevation, is not considered to result in any loss of neighbouring residential amenity. Number 110 Joy Lane is considered to be located far enough away from the extension for it to have no detrimental impact on this property either. The extension would not project beyond the deepest part of No. 2 Medina Avenue and would be located 5.8m away from the neighbour which is considered to be an acceptable separation distance. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would appear overbearing or visually intrusive when viewed from any neighbouring property.
34. There have been concerns raised on the grounds of overlooking however, it is considered that this could be addressed by way of condition as the side windows at first-floor level could be obscure glazed. It is considered that the method of obscure glazing and window opening could be subject to a condition that would preserve neighbouring amenity, but would also ensure that sufficient ventilation and outlook were provided for the extended dwelling. 35. The drawings show that the gallery would feature an internal railing which would be positioned away from the windows and glazed elements shown on the elevations. The resultant void would ensure that views from the first floor would be towards the rear garden as opposed to overlooking of neighbouring gardens. It is therefore considered that this would not give rise to any unreasonable levels of loss of privacy. A condition can be attached to ensure that the position of the gallery remains as shown on the plans and does not project further forward towards the windows. 36. In respect of objections received to the chimney, Building Regulations will control issues such as smoke passing onto neighbouring properties. 37. The issue of light spillage from the rear extension has also been taken into account, however due to the position and orientation of the neighbours in relation to the extension as mentioned in paragraph 32; this is not considered to be grounds for refusal either. Other issues 38. Officers have no concerns with the details submitted with the application and as such there are no objections to a decision being made on their basis. 39. The application is not considered to give rise to issues regarding nature conservation. Conclusion and recommendation 40. Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would comply with the Council's policies and guidelines and would not cause unacceptable harm to the visual amenities of the area, the appearance of the building or the amenities of any neighbouring property and would not prejudice highway safety. 41. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.