The Proposal Will Ruin the Visual Appearance of the Street Scene
Application Ref: / 3/2017/0376 /
Date Inspected: / 25/5/17
Officer: / VW
DELEGATED ITEM FILE REPORT: / REFUSAL
Development Description: / Proposed extension to the side and rear of the existing detached dwelling.
Site Address/Location: / 52a Durham Road Wilpshire BB1 9LR
CONSULTATIONS: / Parish/Town Council
Objection due to the rear balcony and its adverse effect on neighbours amenity and the proposal will have an adverse effect on the street scene.
CONSULTATIONS: / Highways/Water Authority/Other Bodies
LCC Highways:
No objection subject to the imposition of conditions
CONSULTATIONS: / Additional Representations.
Letters of representation have been received from four individual households objecting to the application on the following grounds:
- Reduced highway safety
- Loss of light
- The proposal will ruin the visual appearance of the street scene
- Loss of privacy/Overlooking
- Noise disturbance
- Loss of view
- Devaluation of property
- Overbearing and visually intrusive
- A precedent will be set
RELEVANT POLICIES AND SITE PLANNING HISTORY:
Ribble Valley Core Strategy:
Policy DMG1: General Considerations
Policy DMH5: Residential and Curtilage Extensions
Relevant Planning History:
3/2010/0360:
Proposed single storey porch to the front of the property.
ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
Site Description and Surrounding Area:
The application property is a gable-fronted part two storey, part three storey detached dwelling faced with red brick and render, concrete roof tiles and UPVC window frames and doors. The area is of typical suburban character and the wider locality is predominantly residential. The immediate area is characterised by detached properties in a range of styles.
Proposed Development for which consent is sought:
Consent is sought for the erection of a two storey side and rear wrap-around extension. The proposal would be located on the west elevation and would have a width of 3.4m, a length of 10m and a height of 8.5m. The rear extension would have a width of 5.3m, and attached balcony that would measure 4.2m wide, 3m long and a would be 2.8m above ground level. The proposal would be faced with brickwork, concrete tiles and white upvc windows and doors.
Impact Upon Residential Amenity:
There are significant concerns regarding the side extension and its impact on the neighbouring property of 54 Durham Road. The side extension would result in a three storey elevation (due to the land levels)falling to the rear. The proposal would extend three metres beyond the rear wall of 54 Durham Road, and there is concern that there would be a significant loss of outlook from the rear windows of 54 Durham Road.
The extension would result in a maximum offset distance of 500mm between the extension and the boundary fence of the neighbouring property and it is considered that the siting of a nearly 8.5m high 3 storey flank wall so close to the shared boundary with 54 Durham Road is of significant detriment to the amenities of the occupiers. The proposed extension would be visible from rear windows nearest the extension which is considered to cause an imposing and overbearing impact on the aforementioned property, particularly to the lower ground and ground floor windows. The extension also has a dominating impact on the residential amenity space to the rear of the neighbouring property and would be wholly unacceptable as a result of its overbearing impact and sense of enclosure in the rear garden, particularly due to the height of the extension which is proposed to be 8.5m.
Moreover, the proposal would have some degree of overshadowing to the amenity space of No. 54 Durham Road in the early mornings.
With reference to objections regarding the balcony, should the application be approved there should be a condition imposed to prevent any overlooking or loss of privacy by ensuring a 1.8m high obscurely glazed fence facing 52 Durham Road is implemented. As there are other balconies to the rear of properties in the immediate area, this element of the proposal would be difficult to resist. Comments regarding the window on the second floor level that would face onto 52 Durham Road have also been acknowledged. In order to prevent any overlooking or loss of privacy, this window could be conditioned to be obscurely glazed and remain in perpetuity should permission be granted.
Therefore I do not consider overlooking and loss of privacy arising from the balcony and second floor window would warrant a reason for refusal of the application and any impact can be adequately mitigated through conditions.
Visual Amenity/External Appearance:
In assessing the impact of the development in is important to ensure that adequate distances are maintained between properties. This is to avoid extensions that greatly change the character of the street by visually linking properties to create a terraced effect. The loss of a visual gap between houses erodes the character of the area and is to be avoided. A gap between 300mm and 500mm would be retained between the proposed development and the neighbouring dwelling, no.54 Durham Road. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would lead to the loss of a visual gap between 52A and 54 Durham Road, would change the balance between buildings and spaces and would give the impression of an unrelieved mass of building. It would be harmful to the visual appearance of the street scene and would dilute the character of the area which is characterised by detached and semidetached houses with spaces between dwellings.
Whilst it is acknowledged that several dwellings in the area have two storey side extensions, there is still a significant distance between the properties unlike this application where there would be minimal visual openness between the properties. The two properties would appear as one larger dwelling rather than two individual dwellings and therefore would be wholly unacceptable.
Moreover, the total width of the rear extension would exceed more than half the width of the original property and would appear as a dominant feature. The staggering effect of the heights of the proposed extension appears disjointed and does not reflect the simple character of the original dwelling nor the immediate dwellings to the east and west. The properties on this side of Durham Road do not have similar rear extensions and therefore any extension such as this would be out of character and adds to the unacceptable impact of the proposal on the visual amenity of the area.
Landscape/Ecology:
The accompanying bat survey found that the development would not cause harm to roosting bats that may be within the immediate area.
Other Matters:
Amendments were suggested to the agent to reduce the visual impact on the area, however these proposals were declined and the application has been determined as submitted.
With reference to Highway Comments and also representations received by consultees, there was initially an objection to the proposed extension as there was not enough off-street parking for the number of bedrooms proposed. As a result, the agent has since sent a revised proposal showing adequate off street parking and the objection from Lancashire Highways has been withdrawn.
Observations/Consideration of Matters Raised/Conclusion:
To summarise, given the mass and siting of the proposal, it would result in an unacceptable terracing affect that would visually harm the amenities of Durham Road. Furthermore, there is strong concern that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the occupants of 54 Durham Road, in terms of Loss of outlook and light. Policy DMG1 of the Core Strategy states that development should ‘not adversely affect the amenities of the surrounding area’ and ‘provide adequate day lighting and privacy distances’. Policy DMH5 concurs with Policy DMG1 in this sense.
Overall, the proposal fails to comply with Policy DMG1 and DMH5, as the development adversely affects the amenities of the neighbouring property due to its imposing and overbearing impact and also affects the visual amenity of Durham Road due to its ‘terracing effect’ and loss of visual gap. It is for the above reasons and having regard to all material considerations and matters raised that I recommend accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION: / That planning consent be refused.