| Informative Notes: | | 1
)Reasons for Granting
The application site comprises of 1.5 storey dwelling in Dunstable. 16 Ridgeway Avenue is constructed of brickwork with a pitched tiled roof and is surrounded by dwellings of a similar style, scale and design. The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey front/side extension to create a garage and a front porch. The proposed front porch would have a hipped roof and measure approximately 1.6 metres in depth, 2.85 metres in width and 3.69 metres in height. The proposed front/side extension would comprise of a flat roof and would measure an overall 6.47 metres in depth, 2.9 metres in width and 2.4 metres in height.
The proposed developments would be sited to the front of the dwellinghouse and would be readily visible to the streetscene of Ridgeway Avenue. As part of the original scheme, the proposed front porch was of a larger depth (2.5 metres) and comprised of a flat roof. During the application, the proposal was amended to include a hipped roof which is more sympathetic and in-keeping with the existing dwellinghouse and surrounding streetscene. The proposed front/side extension would comprise of a flat roof. Although this does not match the roof form of the existing dwelling, it would not be uncharacteristic or harmful for the garage to include a flat roof. Overall, the proposed extensions are considered to be of a modest, single storey design which is proportionate to the original dwelling and harmonises with its existing built form.
The application form details that the proposal would be constructed of brickwork to match the existing dwelling. This has been secured by way of condition which states that all external works hereby permitted shall be carried out in materials to match as closely as possible in colour, type and texture, those of the existing building. This is reasonable to condition in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
The application site shares a boundary with No.1 Goldstone Crescent to the southeast. The proposed front/side extension would be sited adjacent to the rear boundary fence of No.1. This neighbour benefits from a single storey garage/outbuilding which is sited adjacent to the rear boundary fence and the built form of the proposed extension. Due to the siting and orientation of No.1 in relation to the application site, it is not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of light, overbearing impact, overlooking and loss of privacy.
The application site shares a boundary with No.18 Ridgeway Avenue to the northwest. The proposed front porch would be sited adjacent to the shared boundary between No.16 and No.18. As part of the original scheme, the proposal had a depth of 2.5 metres. However, the proposal failed the 45-degree guidance in relation to the adjacent ground floor window at No.18. Due to the internal layout of the site, this would appear to serve a dining room which is a habitable room. To overcome this concern, the proposal was reduced in depth to approximately 1.6 metres. Whilst the proposal was also amended from a flat to hipped roof, it is considered that the proposal would satisfy the 45-degree guidance and as such would no longer result in an unacceptable loss of light to this neighbouring property. Moreover, by virtue of its scale, design and siting, the proposal would not result in an overbearing impact, loss of privacy or overlooking concerns.
Neighbouring property No.12A Holmwood Close shares a boundary to the rear of the application site. However, this neighbour would be sufficiently separated from the proposed development and as such would not be adversely impacted. Similarly, there would be no undue impact to other immediate neighbouring properties.
The Highways Officer stated that whilst the proposed works would not increase the number of bedrooms on site, the applicant has proposed a garage that would remove part of the existing driveway. It is outlined that the proposed garage would not be deemed workable as a garage for parking as it does not meet the internal dimensions to be considered as such. Whilst the Highways Officer considers that the proposed extension would result in the loss of a viable parking space on the driveway, and the proposed garage extension cannot be used for parking, it is considered that the proposal would still retain ample space on the driveway to accommodate adequate off-street parking provision.
Moreover, as part of the original scheme, the application proposed to install a dropped kerb to the front of the dwellinghouse. However, the application site already benefits from an existing vehicle crossover and in consultation with the Highways Officer, it was outlined that the Highway Authority will not allow a second access. The Officer suggested that if the proposed front/side extension is to be used as a storage area, the existing dropped kerb be closed and reinstated and the proposed dropped kerb installed to allow two vehicles to still park off-road on the remaining driveway area. In light of these concerns, the proposed dropped kerb was removed from the scheme.
Dunstable Town Council were consulted on this application and raised no objection. Natural England were consulted but no comments were received.
The application was subject to public consultation in which no representations were received.
Overall, it is considered that the proposed development accords with Policies HQ1, T2 and T3 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, Chapter 11 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and Sections 9 and 12 of the NPPF.Reasons for Granting
The application site comprises of 1.5 storey dwelling in Dunstable. 16 Ridgeway Avenue is constructed of brickwork with a pitched tiled roof and is surrounded by dwellings of a similar style, scale and design. The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey front/side extension to create a garage and a front porch. The proposed front porch would have a hipped roof and measure approximately 1.6 metres in depth, 2.85 metres in width and 3.69 metres in height. The proposed front/side extension would comprise of a flat roof and would measure an overall 6.47 metres in depth, 2.9 metres in width and 2.4 metres in height.
The proposed developments would be sited to the front of the dwellinghouse and would be readily visible to the streetscene of Ridgeway Avenue. As part of the original scheme, the proposed front porch was of a larger depth (2.5 metres) and comprised of a flat roof. During the application, the proposal was amended to include a hipped roof which is more sympathetic and in-keeping with the existing dwellinghouse and surrounding streetscene. The proposed front/side extension would comprise of a flat roof. Although this does not match the roof form of the existing dwelling, it would not be uncharacteristic or harmful for the garage to include a flat roof. Overall, the proposed extensions are considered to be of a modest, single storey design which is proportionate to the original dwelling and harmonises with its existing built form.
The application form details that the proposal would be constructed of brickwork to match the existing dwelling. This has been secured by way of condition which states that all external works hereby permitted shall be carried out in materials to match as closely as possible in colour, type and texture, those of the existing building. This is reasonable to condition in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
The application site shares a boundary with No.1 Goldstone Crescent to the southeast. The proposed front/side extension would be sited adjacent to the rear boundary fence of No.1. This neighbour benefits from a single storey garage/outbuilding which is sited adjacent to the rear boundary fence and the built form of the proposed extension. Due to the siting and orientation of No.1 in relation to the application site, it is not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of light, overbearing impact, overlooking and loss of privacy.
The application site shares a boundary with No.18 Ridgeway Avenue to the northwest. The proposed front porch would be sited adjacent to the shared boundary between No.16 and No.18. As part of the original scheme, the proposal had a depth of 2.5 metres. However, the proposal failed the 45-degree guidance in relation to the adjacent ground floor window at No.18. Due to the internal layout of the site, this would appear to serve a dining room which is a habitable room. To overcome this concern, the proposal was reduced in depth to approximately 1.6 metres. Whilst the proposal was also amended from a flat to hipped roof, it is considered that the proposal would satisfy the 45-degree guidance and as such would no longer result in an unacceptable loss of light to this neighbouring property. Moreover, by virtue of its scale, design and siting, the proposal would not result in an overbearing impact, loss of privacy or overlooking concerns.
Neighbouring property No.12A Holmwood Close shares a boundary to the rear of the application site. However, this neighbour would be sufficiently separated from the proposed development and as such would not be adversely impacted. Similarly, there would be no undue impact to other immediate neighbouring properties.
The Highways Officer stated that whilst the proposed works would not increase the number of bedrooms on site, the applicant has proposed a garage that would remove part of the existing driveway. It is outlined that the proposed garage would not be deemed workable as a garage for parking as it does not meet the internal dimensions to be considered as such. Whilst the Highways Officer considers that the proposed extension would result in the loss of a viable parking space on the driveway, and the proposed garage extension cannot be used for parking, it is considered that the proposal would still retain ample space on the driveway to accommodate adequate off-street parking provision.
Moreover, as part of the original scheme, the application proposed to install a dropped kerb to the front of the dwellinghouse. However, the application site already benefits from an existing vehicle crossover and in consultation with the Highways Officer, it was outlined that the Highway Authority will not allow a second access. The Officer suggested that if the proposed front/side extension is to be used as a storage area, the existing dropped kerb be closed and reinstated and the proposed dropped kerb installed to allow two vehicles to still park off-road on the remaining driveway area. In light of these concerns, the proposed dropped kerb was removed from the scheme.
Dunstable Town Council were consulted on this application and raised no objection. Natural England were consulted but no comments were received.
The application was subject to public consultation in which no representations were received.
Overall, it is considered that the proposed development accords with Policies HQ1, T2 and T3 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, Chapter 11 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and Sections 9 and 12 of the NPPF. |
| 2
)Based on information submitted there are no known issues raised in the context of Human Rights / The Equalities Act 2010 and as such there would be no relevant implications.Based on information submitted there are no known issues raised in the context of Human Rights / The Equalities Act 2010 and as such there would be no relevant implications. |
| 3
)GDP Policy Informative Central Beds Local Plan
In accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the reason for any condition above relates to the Policies as referred to in the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).GDP Policy Informative Central Beds Local Plan
In accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the reason for any condition above relates to the Policies as referred to in the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). |
| 3
)The site is located within the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Natural England have not provided any comments on this application, however, as no additional independent overnight accommodation is proposed, the proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact upon the SAC.The site is located within the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Natural England have not provided any comments on this application, however, as no additional independent overnight accommodation is proposed, the proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact upon the SAC. |
| 4
)This permission relates only to that required under the Town & Country Planning Acts and does not include any consent or approval under any other enactment or under the Building Regulations. Any other consent or approval which is necessary must be obtained from the appropriate authority.This permission relates only to that required under the Town & Country Planning Acts and does not include any consent or approval under any other enactment or under the Building Regulations. Any other consent or approval which is necessary must be obtained from the appropriate authority. |
| 5
)Will a new extension affect your Council Tax Charge?
The rate of Council Tax you pay depends on which valuation band your home is placed in. This is determined by the market value of your home as at 1 April 1991.
Your property's Council Tax band may change if the property is extended. The Council Tax band will only change when a relevant transaction takes place. For example, if you sell your property after extending it, the new owner may have to pay a higher band of Council Tax.
If however you add an annexe to your property, the Valuation Office Agency may decide that the annexe should be banded separately for Council Tax. If this happens, you will have to start paying Council Tax for the annexe as soon as it is completed. If the annexe is occupied by a relative of the residents of the main dwelling, it may qualify for a Council Tax discount or exemption. Contact the Council for advice on 0300 300 8306.
The website link is:
https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/council-tax-bandsWill a new extension affect your Council Tax Charge?
The rate of Council Tax you pay depends on which valuation band your home is placed in. This is determined by the market value of your home as at 1 April 1991.
Your property's Council Tax band may change if the property is extended. The Council Tax band will only change when a relevant transaction takes place. For example, if you sell your property after extending it, the new owner may have to pay a higher band of Council Tax.
If however you add an annexe to your property, the Valuation Office Agency may decide that the annexe should be banded separately for Council Tax. If this happens, you will have to start paying Council Tax for the annexe as soon as it is completed. If the annexe is occupied by a relative of the residents of the main dwelling, it may qualify for a Council Tax discount or exemption. Contact the Council for advice on 0300 300 8306.
The website link is:
https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/council-tax-bands |
|
|---|