Report
R09/0207/PLN at land adjacent to 15 Green Lane, Brinklow for the erection of a detached bungalow.
Authorised Use
Residential.
Relevant decisions
Demolition of the existing detached bungalow and garage and the erectionApproved 14.05.2008
of 2 detached dwellings
Technical Consultations
Highway Authority.Object.Highway safety grounds due to inadequate access road width and
inability to park 2 cars on the site without overhanging the public footpath.
Ecology.Comment.Request informative.
Third Party Consultations
No correspondence has been received.
Other relevant information
The site is currently occupied by a detached bungalow with detached garage and is bordered by 1 and 2 metre high boundary treatment in the forms of brick wall, fencing and hedging. Ground levels on the site are level and a mixture of residential units and agricultural fields surrounds the site.
Planning Policy Guidance
RBLP Policy S3 -Complies -Rural Settlement Hierarchy.
RBLP Policy GP1 -Complies -Design & Appearance.
RBLP Policy GP3 -Complies -Protection Of Amenities.
RBLP Policy T3 -Complies -Access & Highway Layout.
RBLP Policy T5 -Complies -Parking Facilities.
RBLP Policy H14 -Complies -Housing Development Outside Rugby Urban Area.
Determining Considerations
The application is for the sub-division of the site and the erection of a detached residential bungalow adjacent to the existing bungalow on site with a new additional vehicular access being taken off Green Lane. It will have a footprint measuring 6.4m wide by 17m deep, be 2.4m high to eaves level and 5.2m high to the top of the hipped, pitched roof. The plans indicate it will be constructed of bricks with render finish, grey roof tile, white upvc fascias and black gutters and rain water pipes.
Policy S3 details the rural settlement hierarchy and details Brinklow as being a main rural settlement where small-scale developments will be permitted. In this instance the erection of an additional bungalow adjacent to the existing bungalow is, due to the numbers involved, considered to be a small scale development and as such complies with the requirements of this policy.
Housing development outside Rugby urban area is covered by policy H14 that indicates limited residential developments will be permitted in the main rural settlements subject to their compliance with certain criteria. In this instance the site has an area below the 0.2 hectares figure quoted in the policy and is within the defined boundaries for Brinklow that as detailed above is a main rural settlement. The sites that immediately adjoin the site are currently occupied by residential dwellings and of a size that the site could not be expanded to incorporate these sites and as such the site is not part of a larger developable area. Overall therefore it complies with the various relevant criteria and therefore complies with the requirements of this policy.
Whilst it is apparent that an attempt has been made to design the proposal in a manner that will allow it to fit in with and relate to both the existing bungalow and area, there are a number of issues. The position of the proposal with one of the flank walls immediately on the boundary with the existing bungalow in a small portion of the overall site with restricted width gives the impression of it being crammed into the site that is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area as the existing dwellings in the area are set within reasonably spacious plots. Furthermore the front door and a number of principle room windows are set within the south facing flank wall within 1m of the site boundary with the adjacent dwellings known as ‘Honeywood’. This relationship means that any future occupant of the proposed dwelling would have a very poor outlook detrimental to their amenities whilst also adversely impacting on the amenities of this neighbour. The depth of the proposed bungalow at 17m will see a section of the proposal project beyond the notional 45-degree line from the rear of the existing bungalow on-site to the detriment of the amenities of any occupant. The window that will serve bedroom 1 is located on the front wall of the house adjacent to the footpath that will lead to the front door on the flank wall of the proposed property. Whilst the use of windows on the front elevation is an important feature in the streetscene, in this instance it serving a bedroom is not considered appropriate in terms of amenity and privacy for whoever will utilise this bedroom. It can therefore be seen from these points that the proposal is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and would have a detrimental impact on amenities contrary to the requirements of policies GP1 and GP3.
The Highway Authority has objected to the proposal on the grounds that the proposed access arrangements and turning area fail to meet the required size criteria with regards to width as at 2.2m wide they are 0.8m below the required 3.0m minimum width. Furthermore the turning area is of insufficient size to actually allow vehicles to turn satisfactorily in order that they can leave the site is a forward gear. A total of 2 parking spaces are required which cannot be parked on the site due to the area to the front of the proposed dwelling not allowing sufficient space for 2 vehicles to park on at the same time. As such the proposal is detrimental to highway safety and provides insufficient parking provision contrary to the requirements of policies T3 and T5.
Recommendations
Recommend refusal for the following reasons;
Prepared by:Richard Redford20th April 2009
Checked by:GSVigars 02/06/2009
Report Sheet