Licensing

North Planning Committee - 15th July 2010 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 18 CHURCH ROAD NORTHWOOD Single storey side and rear extension involving the demolition of existing garage to rear. 08/02/2010 Report of the Head of Planning & Enforcement Address Development: LBH Ref Nos: 6532/APP/2010/235 Drawing Nos: EBS 1852 Date Plans Received: Date(s) of Amendment(s): The site is situated on the east side of Church Road and comprises a semi-detached property with a hipped roof and front projecting gable. Set just behind and to the side of the property is an existing detached garage building with a vehicular access/driveway leading to that building. There is a shared party wall running between the two properties demarcating the boundary line and the neighbouring property has constructed a similar proposal to their property, although slightly shallower. The frontage has been laid to hardstanding, which provides limited off street parking for the dwelling. The si te is within the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character as identified in the Hillingdon Unit ary Development Plan (UDP) (Saved Policies September 2007). The application seeks planning permission to erect a single storey side/rear extension. The side extension would be 2.4m wide and 16.3m deep, involving a 7.85m rear projection, which would replace an existing garage in this position. This 7.85m rear projection would be 3.2m wide. The reminder of the rear elevation would be finished with a shallower (3.3m deep) 5m wide extension. The side extension would project forward of the original property, using the same building line as the porch element. The extensions are shown to be finished with various pitched and hipped roof forms, at a maximum height of 3.6m. 6532/D/98/0723 18 Church Road Northwood Erection of a single storey side and rear extension 10-06-1998 Decision Date: Approved 1. CONSIDERATIONS 1.3 Relevant Planning History 1.1 Site and Locality 1.2 Proposed Scheme 27/04/2010 Date Application Valid: Appeal: North Planning Committee - 15th July 2010 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS This application is identical to a proposal approved in 1998 (6532/D/98/0723). However, since that 1998 approval the area has been designated as an Area of Special Local Character (March 2005). The new scheme should be assessed against its impact on the character of the area and the guidance on Residential Extensions adopted in July 2006 (revised Dec 2008). Not applicable Advertisement and Site Notice 2. 2.1 Advertisement Expiry Date:- Not applicable 2.2 Site Notice Expiry Date:- EXTERNAL: 9 neighbours and the Northwood Residents Association consulted, 4 responses have been received which raise the following issues: 1. We are against this application - as it will detract from the character of the street, and also could put a strain on the sewage/drainage systems. 2. I have already had 2 lots of super structure work carried out to my property and I am worried about the further damage this could cause to my foundations and boundary. 3. The new extension would extend past my conservatory, blocking my light and making my dining room even darker. 4. The whole extension appears to double the floor area, making it overbearing and an overdevelopment of the site. 5. Parking is also an issue as they have two big vehicles at the moment. 6. There will also be a problem with bins as there will be no rear access - wil l they be left out the front all the time? 7. I think the extension is not in-keeping with the rest of the properties in the r oad, if No.18 and 16 both do an extension with an adjoining party wall, this will mean my property will be an end of terrace rather than a semi - reducing its value. 8. These are 1930's houses, so the foundations are not as deep as used today - will this extension cause damage? 9. There would also be a problem with builders vehicles, which has not been dealt with 10. The other issue is light - these extensions will fill most of the rear garden and due to the proposed heights will block out light to our habitable rooms 11. Could some measures be put in place to stop the residents of this road using the area as a car park - perhaps the development of a red route could be an effective way of stopping the area becoming a car park zone. Ward Councillor - The extensions are disproportionate to the original dwelling and would result in the loss of light to No.20. Therefore, requests that application is det ermined at North Planning Committee. INTERNAL: Conservation Officer: This is a semi-detached property within the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character. The scheme is identical to the one approved previously in 1998. Since then, Comment on Planning History 3. Comments on Public Consultations North Planning Committee - 15th July 2010 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS UDP / LDF Designation and London Plan The following UDP Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: BE5 BE13 BE15 BE19 BE20 BE21 BE23 BE24 New development within areas of special local character New development must harmonise with the existing street scene. Alterations and extensions to existing buildings New development must improve or complement the character of the area. Daylight and sunlight considerations. Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions. Requires the provision of adequate amenity space. Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to neighbours. Part 2 Policies: the area has been designated as an Area of Special Local Character (March 2005). The new scheme should be assessed against its impact on the character of the area and the guidance on Residential Extensions adopted in July 2006 (revised Dec 2008). COMMENTS: The drawings submitted are very poor in quality and lack details. There are no existing plans to compare the new scheme against what has been approved in the past. It is understood, that the scheme proposes to demolish an existing garage and create a wrap around side and rear single storey extension part 3.3m deep and part 7.9 m deep. Since the existing garage is being demolished, any new extension would need to comply with the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement, Residential Extensions - Dec 2008 which prescribes a maximum depth of 4m for rear extensions. The proposed rear extension would, therefore, be unacceptable at present. To the side, the extension is forward of the front of the bay window. This would be unacceptable in principle and the extension should be set back by a minimum of 1m from the original main frontage of the property, i.e. beyond the brick porch. The roof form of the extension is also not clear and does not appear to integrate with the rear extension. The roof appears to show a lean to roof to the side but appears to have a dual pitched roof to the rear, joined with the mono pitch roof to the remaining section of the rear extension. This would be unacceptable in design terms and needs to be resolved. Overall, the proposed side extension, due to its position and roof form, would be considered visually intrusive to the character and appearance of the area and would be unacceptable. The rear extension is over large and excessively deep and does not accord with our design guidance. It is, therefore, unacceptable. The overall roof form is also unacceptable in design terms. CONCLUSION: Unacceptable at present. 4. North Planning Committee - 15th July 2010 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS AM14 HDAS LPP 4A.3 New development and car parking standards. Residential Extensions London Plan Policy 4A.3 - Sustainable Design and Construction. 5. MAIN PLANNING ISSUES The main considerations are design and impact upon the dwelling, the Area of Special Local Character, the impact upon the amenities of adjoining occupiers, the adequacy of retained amenity space and car parking considerations. Policy BE15 of the UDP (Saved Policies September 2007) requires extensions to harmonise with the scale, form, architectural composition and proportions of the orig inal building. The adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SPD): Residential Extensions: Section 3.0 on rear extensions and conservatories: single storey states that careful thought must be given to the size, depth, location, height and overall appearance of the extension. Section 3.1 emphasises that the extension should always be designed so as to appear subordinate to the original house. Section 4.0 in relation to single storey extensions states again that careful thought should be given to the size, depth, location, height and overall appearance of any side extension. The design should not dominate the existing character of the original property but appear subordinate to the main a house. It is considered that the proposal would not cause an unacceptable loss of light or outlook to adjoining occupiers. The main properties to be affected would be the immediate neighbours to either side (Nos. 16 and 20). No.16 (on the south side) has a similar extension on the shared boundary, at a similar depth, and therefore would not be materially affected by this proposal. With regard to No.20 (on the north side), thi s property has a conservatory. The SPD: Residential Extensions: Section 3.1, states, in or der that an extension would not cause an unacceptable loss of light or outlook to adjoining occupiers it should not exceed 3.6m deep and the element on this boundary would comply with this advice, at 3.3m in depth. With regard to the height of the proposed extension Section 3.7 of the SPD: Residential Extensions states this type of roof should not exceed 3.4m in height. This proposal would again comply with this advice at 3.4m. Therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with the intentions of Policy BE20 and BE21 of the U DP (Saved Policies September 2007) and the advice contained within the SPD: Residential Extensions (2006). With regard to loss of privacy, it is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse effect. There are no openings shown in the flank elevations of the extension save the patio doors that would open onto the applicants garden area and it is considered due to the single storey nature of the proposal any overlooking concerns could be overcome by a screen fence condition. Therefore, subject to condition the proposal would accord with Policy BE24 of the UDP Saved Policies September 2007 and with HDAS Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Extensions. It is considered, that all the proposed habitable rooms, and those altered by the development still maintain an adequate outlook and source of natural light, therefore complying with Policy 4A.3 of the London Plan (2008). In terms of design and appearance of the extension, the proposed doors and windows would reflect the proportions and style of the existing property. However, whilst the conservation officers concerns (above) are noted in relation to the depth of the proposed rear extension, it is considered the proposed additional depth on the south side of the site North Planning Committee - 15th July 2010 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS REFUSAL for the following reasons: NON2 NON2 Non Standard reason for refusal Non Standard reason for refusal The proposed single storey side extension, by reason of its siting, size, bulk, roof design, would result in an incongruous addition which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing building, the street scene and the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies BE5, BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Polices, September 2007) and to the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Documents HDAS: Residential Extensions. The proposal fails to demonstrate that sufficient off street car parking can be prov ided to accord with the Council's policies and standards, thereby resulting in on-street park ing to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety. The proposal is therefore contrary policy AM14 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Polices, September 2007) and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Documents HDAS: Residential 1 2 RECOMMENDATION 6. would replace an existing garage building in this position and therefore would not result in the worsening of an existing situation and as such would not warrant the refusal of planning permission on these grounds alone. Whilst this is the case there are issues i n relation to the front projection, the proposed roof form and the overall design of the proposal. With regard to the roof form, it is not clear how this would work, the roof area finishing the rear projection does not appear to integrate with the remaining rear extensi on and in relation to the side extension the roof appears to show a lean to roof on the side elevations but appears to have a dual pitched roof to the rear. Again it is not clear how the dummy pitch to the front would tie in with the mono-pitched roof behind. Therefore this would be unacceptable in design terms. The forward projection of the side extension beyond the front building line of the original dwelling would not be considered acceptable, as it would detract from the original frontage of the dwelling with its bay w indow feature. It is therefore considered that the design of the extension is at odds with the archit ectural merit of the host dwelling. As such, the extension would result in an overly domi nant and incongruous addition in relation the original property, the Area of Special Local Character and the wider street scene, and therefore would be contrary with Policies BE5, BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP (Saved Policies September 2007) and the Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: Residential Extensions. The existing garage at the rear of the site would be lost as a result of this dev elopment. The layout plan shows the provision of two off street parking spaces on the frontage. However, there are inaccuracies in the layout and dimensions on these plans. Officers consider that there is insufficient distance between the front of the property and the footway (ie. less than 4.8m) for vehicles to park at a 90 degree angle to the pavement edge without overhanging the footway. It is considered, therefore, that the proposals would not provide satisfactory parking provision to comply with Policy AM14 of the UDP (Saved Policies September 2007). A garden of more than 100sq.m would be retained and therefore the proposals would comply with policy BE23 of the UDP (Saved Polices September 2007). North Planning Committee - 15th July 2010 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS NON2 Non Standard reason for refusal Extensions. Despite the lack of accurate and consistent drawings of the original property and proposed single storey rear/side extension, it is considered that there is suffici ent information before the Local Planning Authority to satisfy it that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the upon the character and appearance of the original dwelling, the street scene and the Area of Special Local Character and the proposed car parking. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE5, BE13, BE19, and AM14 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007) and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Documents HDAS: Residential Extensions. 3 INFORMATIVES Catherine Hems 01895 250230 Contact Officer: Telephone No: Standard Informatives 1 The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circ ulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention r ights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (ri ght to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: Policy No. BE5 BE13 BE15 BE19 BE20 BE21 BE23 BE24 AM14 HDAS LPP 4A.3 New development within areas of special local character New development must harmonise with the existing street scene. Alterations and extensions to existing buildings New development must improve or complement the character of the area. Daylight and sunlight considerations. Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions. Requires the provision of adequate amenity space. Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to neighbours. New development and car parking standards. Residential Extensions London Plan Policy 4A.3 - Sustainable Design and Construction. 2 LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON Planning & Community Services Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW Telephone No.: Uxbridge 250111 R E E E E U U U A U A UU U U 98 El Sub Sta 149 101 171 72.5m 103a 107 1a CF EMMA NORTHWO OD WAY CHURC H 8 20 16 64 74.4m Hall 22 10 Dra in 25 64 1 to 5 1 8 1 to 10 2 Und 2 75.9m 10 13100 128 161 TCB 11 8 105 2 Emman uel Church 2 2 GA TEH ILL ROAD 1 CLOSE 11 7 21 2 103 13 21 CH URC H ROAD CR Marlbor 1 TOWNSE ND WA Y 24 12 17 10 102 96 Belgar House 134 142 77.7m 1 CF Ward Bdy 3 12 20 ´ July 2010 Site AddressNotes For identification purposes only. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2009 Site boundary This copy has been made by or with the authority of the Head of Committee Services pursuant to section 47 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the Act). Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright. 18 Church Road Northwood 6532/APP/2010/235 North Planning Application Ref: Planning Committee Date Scale 1:1,250