It Is Considered That the Proposed Development Will Not Cause Significant Harm to the Amenity

REDCAR AND CLEVELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT)

COMMITTEE DATE: 18/08/2010

LIST: D

APPLICATION NUMBER: R/2010/0453/RS

Application For: FRONT PORCH (AMENDED SCHEME)

At: 21 SHERWOOD DRIVE MARSKE BY THE SEA

PROPOSAL:

Permission is sought for a front porch extension at 21 Sherwood Drive, Marske. Sherwood Drive is a residential street consisting of a mix of dwelling types including single and two storey.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN:

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework 2007:

CS20 – Promoting Good Design

DP1 – Development Limits

DP2 – Site Selection

DP3 – Sustainable Design

OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS:

Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD (April 2010)

RELEVANT HISTORY:

An application was received in April 2010 for a first floor and single storey front extension. The application was withdrawn in June 2010 prior to determination.

SALTBURN MARSKE AND NEW MARSKE PARISH COUNCIL:

Recommended for approval on 28 June 2010.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

The application has been advertised by means of 9 no. neighbour notification letters to neighbours in the vicinity of the site.

As a result 8 no. objection letter have been received from 13, 15, 17, 23, 25, and 27 Sherwood Drive and 60 Fir Rigg Drive. The objection letters received make the following comments:

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

· Very large for a porch

· Proposal will protrude out from original building line

· Extension will cut out light to no. 23 Sherwood Drive

· Will adversely affect the design and appearance of the street

· Excessive and unsightly for a porch

· Extension would detract from the open plan and sharp lines of the road

OTHER COMMENTS

· Could open the door for further more obtrusive building developments

· The construction would be a breach of the deed of covenant which covers construction on the front of the properties

In addition 1 no. statements of support has been received electronically from 19 Sherwood Drive

REASONED ARGUMENT:

Permission is sought for a front porch extension at 21 Sherwood Drive, Marske. Sherwood Drive is a residential street consisting of a mix of dwelling types including single and two storey.

The proposed porch extension is to project 1.7 metres and is to span 4.0 metres in width. The proposal incorporates a hipped roof design with a maximum height of 4.0 metres. It is accepted that the proposal will project beyond the existing building line of the neighbouring semi-detached dwellings; however it is not considered that the projection has significant detrimental impact on the wider street scene when considered with regard to the building line of the dwellings to west from 31 Sherwood Drive. The design of the porch maintains a similarly scaled and proportioned window on the front elevation, which is considered to afford a degree of symmetry with the adjoining dwelling. The porch also incorporates the entrance door on the side elevation, which is again a feature of the dwellings in close proximity.

The proposal is not considered to have a significant adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring residential dwellings. The front elevation of the dwelling and those neighbouring face north, with the total proposed projection to the front being 3.1 metres. Given that the existing forward projection (1.4 metres) and extension is set 2.5 metres from the party boundary, the proposed extension is not considered to have a significant overshadowing or overbearing impact on the adjoining dwelling (23 Sherwood Drive).

Consultation responses have raised concerns that should the proposal be granted this may lead to further more obtrusive developments. This is however not considered to be sufficient as a reason for refusal as any subsequent application would be assessed on their own merits based on the details submitted. Other responses have raised concerns that the proposal would be a breach of a deed of covenant for the area. Covenants are not a matter that planning legislation can control and therefore a breach of a covenant can not be used as a reason for refusal.

The application does not alter the parking provision within curtilage. The proposal is therefore not considered to have an adverse impact upon highway safety.

RECOMMENDATION:

Taking into account the contents of the report the recommendation is to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions;

(1) The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date of this permission.

REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

(2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

· Block Plan – Drawing Number 2012/RML/02/A as received by the Local Planning Authority on 14th June 2010

· Existing and Proposed Plans and Elevations – Drawing Number 2012/RML/01/A as received by the Local Planning Authority on 14th June 2010

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.

(3) Details of the external materials to be used in the carrying out of this permission (including samples) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development and the development shall not be carried out except in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure the use of satisfactory materials