Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning) for the erection of a single storey and part two storey rear extension following the demolition of the existing conservatory. The proposal also includes new openings and alterations to first floor side elevation windows on flank walls of the original dwelling. 

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning) for the erection of two storey and single storey rear extension following the demolition of an existing conservatory.

The proposal also includes new and alterations to fenestration on the flank wall.

 

This planning application is presented to DMC because it was called in by Councillor B. Fitzsimons and Councillor L. Musk as it was considered that the proposal would be of an overbearing size and would impact on the immediate adjoining neighbours and the wider neighbourhood.

 

The application was advertised by means of neighbour notification letters. One objection was received, and the comments or objections are published in full on the council's website.

 

The site lies within Welwyn Garden City as designated in the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan, and it is also within the Estate Management Scheme.

 

The planning application benefits from a rear conservatory, which is approximately 3.8 metres in depth and will be demolished to allow the erection of the rear extension on the ground floor. This element of the proposal would span across the entire width of the dwelling, and it would measure approximately 3.5 metres in depth and about 3 metres in height, which is not considered to be excessive in size and scale. It would not result in a cramped form of development within its site.

 

Although small in scale No. 7 Robin Mead benefits from a single storey rear extension, which is approximately 8.1 metres in depth. It is therefore considered that the single storey element of the proposal would not appear unduly dominant on this neighbouring property.

 

In terms of the two-storey rear extension, its flank wall would be approximately 1 metre from the boundary of No. 52 Lumbards. Therefore, this proposed extension would extend by approximately one third of the depth of the original building, although the proposal would not be set down from the existing roof ridge.

 

Whilst the proposal does not fully comply with the council's Supplementary Design Guidance, each case must be assessed on its own merits. The two-storey element would be set in from the common boundary with No. 7 Robin Mead by approximately 3.3 metres. Moreover, the two-storey rear extension would not be highly visible on the street scene.

 

The proposed roof design would match and correspond with that of the host dwelling. It is therefore considered that the proposed two storey extension would not appear unduly dominant or cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

 

The proposed development would be finished in matching materials to the existing dwelling, therefore subject to a planning condition to secure this, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. Overall, it is considered that the design of the proposed extension would respect and relate to the existing dwelling and the character of the area in accordance with the relevant development plan policies and the NPP.

 

Due to the location of the proposed works, the neighbouring occupiers which are the most likely to be affected by the proposal are those at No. 7 Robin Mead to the north, those which adjoin the rear garden of the application property at No. 50 and No. 52 Lumbards to the south, and the rear garden of No.15 Eastor to the south-east.

 

In terms of the single storey rear extension, given the single storey nature of the proposal on the site where it adjoins No. 7, the proposal would not cause loss of light or appear unduly dominant from this adjoining neighbour.

 

In terms of overbearing and loss of light, the proposed two storey rear extension would be highly visible from the rear garden of No. 52 Lumbards. The depth of the rear garden of No. 52 is approximately 11 metres, and there is approximately one metre between the proposed side flank wall and the flank boundary. Given the separation, distance, the depth of the two-storey extension, and the orientation in relation to this neighbouring property, it is considered that the proposal would not significantly worsen the living conditions of these neighbouring occupiers in terms of overbearing and loss of light.

 

The two first floor windows, which would face No. 52 Lumbards, would serve non-habitable rooms and a landing, and are small in size (approximately 60cm x 40cm). These would be non-opening and obscure glazed. As such, it is considered that these windows would not result in a detrimental loss of privacy to any of the neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, views from the first-floor rear elevation windows of the two-storey extension would have potential overlooking of the rear gardens of No. 7 Robin Mead and No. 15 Eastor, however, the degree of overlooking would be consistent with a neighbouring relationship generally accepted between residential properties.

 

In terms of the roof windows, these would be installed in the roof and the room is approximately 2.5 metres high, which has been confirmed by the agent and therefore would not impact on the privacy of any of the neighbouring occupiers. It is important to note that the first-floor side elevation windows in the flank of the original building and the proposed rooflights can usually be installed without planning permission in accordance with the conditions and limitations of permitted development rights.

 

Overall, given the scale, orientation, and the separation distance between the proposed extension and the neighbouring occupiers, it is considered that the proposal would not cause loss of light, appear unduly dominant from any adjoining properties or result in detrimental loss of privacy.

 

In terms of car parking, the site currently benefits from adequate on-site car parking, and furthermore there is no change in the parking space requirements, as existing parking arrangements are viewed to be acceptable.

 

In conclusion, the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposal would not result in any significant detrimental impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. As such, the proposed development complies with the relevant local and national policies, subject to planning conditions regarding external materials and also obscure glazing to first-floor side elevation windows and rooflights (facing No. 7 Robin Mead and No. 52 Lumbards) and non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is The proposal is therefore recommended for approval by officers.

 

Steve Johnson, Agent, spoke regarding the application:

“To be clear, this is a residential extension requested by the current owners to improve the living conditions for the parents and the children to this smaller than average house within this area.

This is not an extension for financial gain, but an improvement to everyday life. The extension is so the active family in the neighbourhood do not have to relocate and cause deficit to the community.

The Planning Officer is minded to grant, so why are we here? The procedure to call in, if minded to grant and if warranted, is a great system to make clear why we should or should not be approved. Generally, it is accepted no one likes changes or extensions but these occur to meet residents' needs as their family circumstances change, including the increased need for care in the community for senior members of the family.

The ability to extend is everyone's right, but this is done under the guidance of policies written by your planning department to act as guidelines and prevent excessive development and cause a reduction in living conditions to surrounding houses. The guardians of the policies are the planning officers, and it is expected and warranted that we have made amendments to meet these policies, hence why it is now minded to approve.

To be clear, this extension is not inappropriate in design. We have matching materials, we have non habitable windows to the boundaries, so there's no overlooking.

This extension is north of the properties adjoining and therefore there is no loss in daylight or sunlight.

It is being proposed to make the extension look as much as the original building as possible, hence why we have felt it stronger to put the ridgeline constant rather than make it look like a separate or an extended building.

Can this extension be seen from other properties? Yes, of course, as do many other properties, but there is no planning law in this area that has a right to sight lines, otherwise this could go on for miles. It meets the requirement of the policy from the rear of a house to a side of a house, so therefore it complies. We in fact meet all policies set by this council for extensions to protect the interests of the surrounding properties. This does not always seem so for the occupiers of these surrounding properties, as they are the current occupiers and merely caretakers of the property, the interests of the property’s protection is by these policies and has been implemented by the Planning Officer. The policies take the wider view and effect of any extension, that they offer guidance, a guidance that my client has followed and met, hence why the Planning Officers are minded to grant.

It is important to keep in mind the planning process needs to balance the needs of the individuals in the interests of the wider community, and the policies in place are intended to support this goal. We believe we have met those policies and we hope you can support a reason for approval.”

Joanna Willcocks, Objector, spoke regarding the application:

“I live at number 52 Lumbards, and the proposed development is at the end of my garden. I have a small garden 11 metres deep and at the end of the garden, there's one metre and then there’s this huge wall of the property, which is 9 Robin Mead. The proposed windows that are in that wall will be facing directly into my son's bedroom window and into my garden below.

We have heard tonight that those windows will be fixed and also obscure glass, but it does present to me a lack of privacy because there are windows there.

Also, when I look directly out of my house, because the house stretches along the back of my garden, I can only see a very small slither of sky. When the extension is extended, I won't be able to see any sky when I look out unless I physically go outside, I'm just going to be looking at a wall, so it is for me unduly dominant. It will feel as if I'm completely shut in when I look out of the rear of my house.

Also, I don't think the plans are correct because if you look at the plans, the conservatory which has been knocked down, where the extension is being built, is shown to be on the boundary of my property and my next-door neighbour, that's not actually the case. The current conservatory extends behind my neighbour's garden, so the extension will extend beyond my garden and behind my neighbour's garden.

The proposals effectively increase the footprint of the property from about 58 square metres to 82 square metres, which is an increase of about 40%, and this, coupled with the fact that the extension is the full height and the width of the existing building it can't be considered subordinate to the original house. So, if you approve an extension like this it could potentially give way to a precedent in the area of extensions of this size and change the nature of the Haldens area.”

Councillor B. Fitzsimon, Ward Member (Statement read out by Councillor A. Hellyer):

“I'm speaking on behalf of Co Ward Councillor Barbara Fitzsimon, who has asked me to read a short statement.”

 

Firstly, and most importantly, the two-storey extension proposed is of an overbearing size affecting plot number 50 and 52 Lumbards. The position of the proposed works affects neighbours in the road of Robin Mead, but additionally, as this is at the end of the Close it will affect houses perpendicular to the proposed extension and therefore impacts not just the immediate adjoining houses but others nearby and has an effect on the wider neighbourhood.

 

Members discussed the application and a summary of the main points raised are shown below:

·             Members asked for comments from officers as to the impact of the proposed extension on the character of the area.

 

-              Officers said the proposal will not impact on the character of the area. It is at the rear of the property, and it has been carefully and sensitively designed.

 

-              The single storey spans across the width of the host dwelling, and the two-storey extension is only part two-storey, and it is set in from the neighbour at No. 7 by around 3.3 metres.

 

-              Members asked what weight should be given to the glazing being obscured.

 

-              Officers said they have recommended a condition for those windows to be obscure glazed and they are high level windows and so these are not likely to impact on privacy of neighbouring occupiers.

 

-              Members asked for a response in relation to a speaker comment that the footprint of the site increasing by around 40%.

 

-              Officers advised that they have not calculated the increase in footprint but said that the existing conservatory is 3.8 metres in depth, and the depth of the proposal is 3.5 metres.

 

-              Members asked if a condition could be included around landscaping to negate the impact of the new extension on neighbouring properties.

 

-              Officers said it is unlikely that there would be enough space between the development and the boundary to accommodate anything meaningful.

 

-              Officers said that members need to bear in mind that this is a householder planning application that would not normally come before this committee. This is, as officers have recommended, a proportionate extension to the property. There is a relationship with the neighbouring property to the south, which is quite common in parts of Welwyn Garden City.

 

-              It is the view of officers that, having regard to the design changes the applicant has made, this is the kind of extension that should normally be supported unless there are specific negative impacts on the neighbours that can be identified and substantiated with policy.

 

-              Members asked if there are already other similar two storey extensions which have been built within the area or would this be setting a precedent.

 

-              Officers said we need consider this application on its own merits. Two storey rear extensions are very common projects in residential areas and are the obvious way to increase living accommodation within a property. Whilst officers could not cite any specific examples, they believed that within the wider area there will be other two-storey extensions.

 

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor S. Tunstall and seconded by Councillor R. Trigg to approve the application.

            RESOLVED:

            (7 in favour, 4 against, 1 abstentions)

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions set out within the report.