Download Report - Planning Portal

Report
76 Tennyson Avenue, Rugby
Erection of first floor side extension
Application Reference R/08/0790 HOUS
Expires
10th July 2008
Authorised Use
Residential
Relevant decisions
None
Technical Consultations
Head of Environmental Services has commented that the proposal is required to comply with
the Council’s standards of amenities for the size of rooms and number of facilities and also
restriction of hours for building the development. These requirements are unreasonable and
therefore will not be taken into account in the outcome of this proposal.
Third Party Consultations
Neighbour 1 letter of objection. Comments as follows“Overlooking from dormer window into living room and 2 bedrooms resulting in loss of privacy”
Other relevant information
The property is a bungalow at the end of a cul de sac within a residential area that comprises
semi-detached houses, bungalows and maisonettes. The bungalow itself is a modest unit with a
single storey aspect on the side and a conservatory to the rear. A garage is linked to a similar
garage and formed separately across the edge of the cul de sac. It is situated adjacent to a plot
of land that is well landscaped with mature trees and dense vegetation. The boundaries of this
plot are fenced with vegetation along the rear part.
Number 78, Tennyson Avenue is a detached house and is situated approximately 22 metres
south of the application property. This dwellinghouse has lounge and bedroom window that
looks directly across to the bungalow in question.
To the rear of the site is a complex of T shaped two storey maisonettes formed around a
grassed amenity area and car parking.[Ash Court]
Planning Policy Guidance
RBLP policy GP 1 Conflicts
RBLP policy GP 3 Conflicts
RBLP policy H 8 Conflicts
RBLP policy E 8 Complies
RBLP policy E 6 Complies
Appearance and design
Protection of amenities
Residential extensions
Ecological habitats and geological features
Biodiversity
Determining Considerations
Policy GP1 deals with the appearance and design of development. This policy indicates that
planning permission will only be granted for development, which amongst other matters
safeguards or creates an attractive environment. The policy requires that the scale, massing,
Report Sheet
form and orientation of buildings is attractive, unobtrusive and does not detract from local
amenity or the appearance of the building being extended.
Policy GP 3 seeks to protect amenities of neighbouring residents. In considering development
proposals it will be necessary to consider how they might affect the amenities of an area and
immediate neighbours. It is important to safeguard the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of
existing neighbouring properties and resist development where unacceptable harm would occur.
Policy H 8.The extensions of existing dwellings can have a significant effect on the character of
the building and the surrounding area and on the amenities of nearby residents. Extensions to
existing dwellings will be approved provided that they respect the scale and character of the
existing building, the surrounding area and the amenities of nearby residents.
Policy E 8 seeks to protect ecological habitats. Planning permission will not be granted for
development that would adversely affect ecological habitats, geological features or landscape
features that are important to the migration, dispersal or genetic exchange of flora and fauna
Policy E 6 concerns biodiversity. The Borough Council will seek to safeguard, maintain and
enhance features of ecological and geological importance, in particular priority habitats/species
and species of conservation concern.
The existing bungalow stands in a corner location of a cul-de-sac amongst mid 50s/60s style of
development. The side extension is unsympathetic to the scale and character of the existing
dwelling. The dormers are a dominant and bulky design. They are an incongruous feature when
seen from adjacent properties and surrounding area. Therefore the proposed development will
conflict with policies GP1 and H 8 of the Rugby Borough Local Plan 2006.
The proposed development incorporates a large dormer window that is in the line of view and
overlooks the lounge and bedroom window of number 78, Tennyson Avenue. Although this
window is approximately 22 metres from these windows the Local Planning Authority considers
that the occupiers of this property will suffer from loss of privacy. The occupiers of this property
are currently not overlooked and the introduction of a 1.4 square metre window will result in an
un-neighbourly form of development. The rear dormer window would obliquely overlook the
adjacent garden at 74, Tennyson Avenue. The nearest windows in the maisonette complex are
ground and first floor windows. These are approximately 30 metres from the development and
are set at an oblique line of site. Therefore this window does not give rise to overlooking into
habitable rooms of this property or Ash Court.
Therefore the proposed development will harm the residential amenities of the neighbouring
property [number 78, Tennyson Avenue] and will conflict with policies GP 3 and part of H 8 of
the Rugby Borough Local Plan 2006.
The Councils Ecology Officer has advised that the development affects roof space and that the
applicant is advised of the protected status of bats. The applicant/developer should be advised
that if evidence of bats or any other protected species are found then work should stop until
Warwickshire Ecology unit is contacted. Subsequent to this the proposed development complies
with policies E 6 and E 8 of the Rugby Borough Local Plan 2006, which seeks to safeguard
protected species.
Recommendations
That planning permission be refused
Prepared by: Brian Slater 7/8/2008
Report Sheet
Principal Officer Comments:
Following discussions with the case officer and viewing several photographs both inside and
outside 78 Tennyson Avenue looking towards the application site I appreciate the above
assessment. However, whilst the Council has no specific habitable window to window
guidelines generally anything over 20 metres is normally regarded as acceptable.
The cill of the proposed dormer is only 3.3 metres above ground level rising to the top of the
window at 4.4 metres above ground level. Between the ground floor window of No. 78 and No.
76 are two flat roofed garages and clear views of the front of No 78 are readily obtained from
the adjacent highway and footpath, which also lies between No 78 and the application site. A
degree of overlooking upon the application site from No. 78 already exists as it is a two-storey
dwelling and the ground is relatively level between both sites.
Overall, whilst the dormer would result in a degree of overlooking of No. 78 when balanced
against the distance between the windows, the presence of two flat roof garages, topography of
the sites, and the proximity of the footpath and road, it is not considered that the suggested
second reason for refusal on loss of amenity grounds is significant enough to warrant a reason
for refusal.
Nevertheless, the design is poor and the scheme should be refused on these grounds.
Checked by: Richard Holt 10/07/2008
Report Sheet