| Informative Notes: | | 1
)Reasons for Granting:
The application site relates to a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling located to the northeastern side of Kingscroft Avenue in Dunstable. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey rear extension, together with fenestration alterations within the northwestern side elevation of the property. The rear extension would measure approximately 6.1m in width, 2.5m in maximum depth, 5.4m in eaves height and 7.9m in maximum height to the roof ridge. The external walls of the extension are proposed to be finished in materials to match the existing dwelling (brickwork and pebbledash render), however, details of roof and fenestration materials have not been specified.
The proposed two-storey extension would not be readily visible within the surrounding street scene of Kingscroft Avenue to the front of the site due to its siting to the rear of the dwelling and the extension would also not be widely visible from Kingsway to the east of the site given the relatively narrow gaps between properties that front this road. In terms of scale, the extension would span the full width of the rear of the property, measuring up to 2.5m in depth and following the eaves and roof ridge of the existing dwelling. The extension is considered to be of an acceptable scale and would appear as a proportionate addition to the host dwelling. Whilst the roof ridge would not be set down from the main roof, the extension is not considered to be of a depth that would result in it appearing unduly bulky or disproportionate to the host dwelling and therefore would be of an acceptable scale in this regard. The design of the proposed extension would mirror the design of the existing dwelling, including replicating the bay window, and the hipped roof form would match the roof form of the property. The proposed extension would be finished in matching brickwork and pebble dash render, complementing the appearance of the host dwelling. Details of fenestration and roof tile materials have not been specified within the application, however, a standard condition will be attached requiring the materials to match as closely as possible to existing. Overall, the proposed extension would be considered to form a proportionate and sympathetic addition to the existing dwellinghouse that would not be deemed to have any detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The alterations to windows/doors within the side elevation of the property would also not materially affect the character and appearance of the wider area.
In terms of the potential for overlooking of neighbouring properties, views from the ground floor windows/doors within the rear elevation of the proposed extension towards neighbouring 30 Kingscroft Avenue and their private amenity space would be adequately screened by the existing close-boarded fencing along the shared boundary. Whilst noted that the majority of the timber close-boarded fencing along the shared boundary with 26 Kingscroft Avenue to the other side is of a lower height that would not fully screen views across to the private amenity space of this neighbouring property, it is considered that there would not be any increased opportunity for views of the rear garden area of this neighbouring property compared to the existing situation and so the proposal would not be considered to adversely affect privacy. The rear extension also includes two first floor rear windows, both serving bedrooms, however, given that the existing dwelling already has two rear bedroom windows, it is considered that this would not materially increase the potential for overlooking of the rear garden areas of adjacent properties compared to the current relationship. The proposal also includes the removal of a door within the ground floor side elevation of the main dwelling and its replacement with a small window to serve a utility room. As this window would not serve a habitable space and would be opposite the side extension of 30 Kingscroft Avenue where there are no windows installed within the side elevation, it is not considered that any harmful overlooking would arise. At first floor level, an existing obscure-glazed large window is proposed to be replaced by a smaller window and the window would remain to serve a bathroom. It is noted that there are windows within the side elevation of 30 Kingscroft Avenue opposite this window which appear to be clear-glazed. Given this, it is considered reasonable to attach a condition requiring the new window to also be obscure-glazed in the interests of maintaining the privacy of these neighbouring occupiers. All other surrounding dwellings are considered to be sufficiently separated or screened from the proposal and would therefore not be detrimentally impacted.
The proposed two-storey rear extension is considered to be of an appropriate depth (2.4m) and would remain within 45 degrees of the rear of the nearest rear opening within the adjacent property of 30 Kingscroft Avenue and therefore would not result in any unacceptable loss of light or overbearing impact for occupiers of this neighbouring property. In terms of the impact for occupiers of the adjoining property of 26 Kingscroft Avenue, the proposed extension would not extend beyond the existing single-storey rear extension of this neighbouring property and at first floor level the extension would remain within a 45 degree angle of the adjacent first floor rear window of 26 Kingscroft Avenue which appears to serve a bedroom, as demonstrated on drawing number 24/301/102. As such, taking this into account, together with its relatively modest depth of 1.95m beyond the rear of this neighbouring property and its siting in a northerly position in relation to this neighbouring property, it is not considered that any adverse loss of light or overbearing impact would occur for occupiers of this adjoining property. All other surrounding properties are considered to be sufficiently separated so as to not be detrimentally impacted.
The proposal involves the enlargement of existing rooms within the dwelling and does not involve the provision of any additional bedrooms. Given that no additional bedrooms would be accommodated, the proposal would not be considered to represent increased parking demand requiring additional parking provision to be demonstrated. The proposal would not affect the existing parking or access arrangements at the site and would therefore be acceptable on a like-for-like basis.
Occupiers of neighbouring properties and Dunstable Town Council have been consulted on this application. The Town Council have raised no objection to the proposal and no representations from neighbours or other third parties have been received.
The Ecologist has also been consulted and raised no objection to the proposal, however, advises the applicant that it is the legal responsibility of the contractor to check for bats and to notify Natural England for advice if bats are found during construction works and an informative note will be attached advising the applicant of this.
The site lies partially within the core of the medieval town of Dunstable and adjacent to the core of the Roman town (HERs 16986 & 131), and immediately adjacent to an undated well (HER22518). These are heritage assets with archaeological interest, as defined by the NPPF. However, the Archaeologist considers that scale and nature of the proposal are such there is unlikely to be a major impact upon any surviving archaeological remains. Consequently, the Archaeologist advises that there would be no archaeological constraint on this development and the proposal would have an acceptable archaeological impact.
Overall, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policies HQ1, T2, T3 and HE1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021), Section 11 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide, the Parking Standards for New Developments SPD, and Sections 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).Reasons for Granting:
The application site relates to a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling located to the northeastern side of Kingscroft Avenue in Dunstable. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey rear extension, together with fenestration alterations within the northwestern side elevation of the property. The rear extension would measure approximately 6.1m in width, 2.5m in maximum depth, 5.4m in eaves height and 7.9m in maximum height to the roof ridge. The external walls of the extension are proposed to be finished in materials to match the existing dwelling (brickwork and pebbledash render), however, details of roof and fenestration materials have not been specified.
The proposed two-storey extension would not be readily visible within the surrounding street scene of Kingscroft Avenue to the front of the site due to its siting to the rear of the dwelling and the extension would also not be widely visible from Kingsway to the east of the site given the relatively narrow gaps between properties that front this road. In terms of scale, the extension would span the full width of the rear of the property, measuring up to 2.5m in depth and following the eaves and roof ridge of the existing dwelling. The extension is considered to be of an acceptable scale and would appear as a proportionate addition to the host dwelling. Whilst the roof ridge would not be set down from the main roof, the extension is not considered to be of a depth that would result in it appearing unduly bulky or disproportionate to the host dwelling and therefore would be of an acceptable scale in this regard. The design of the proposed extension would mirror the design of the existing dwelling, including replicating the bay window, and the hipped roof form would match the roof form of the property. The proposed extension would be finished in matching brickwork and pebble dash render, complementing the appearance of the host dwelling. Details of fenestration and roof tile materials have not been specified within the application, however, a standard condition will be attached requiring the materials to match as closely as possible to existing. Overall, the proposed extension would be considered to form a proportionate and sympathetic addition to the existing dwellinghouse that would not be deemed to have any detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The alterations to windows/doors within the side elevation of the property would also not materially affect the character and appearance of the wider area.
In terms of the potential for overlooking of neighbouring properties, views from the ground floor windows/doors within the rear elevation of the proposed extension towards neighbouring 30 Kingscroft Avenue and their private amenity space would be adequately screened by the existing close-boarded fencing along the shared boundary. Whilst noted that the majority of the timber close-boarded fencing along the shared boundary with 26 Kingscroft Avenue to the other side is of a lower height that would not fully screen views across to the private amenity space of this neighbouring property, it is considered that there would not be any increased opportunity for views of the rear garden area of this neighbouring property compared to the existing situation and so the proposal would not be considered to adversely affect privacy. The rear extension also includes two first floor rear windows, both serving bedrooms, however, given that the existing dwelling already has two rear bedroom windows, it is considered that this would not materially increase the potential for overlooking of the rear garden areas of adjacent properties compared to the current relationship. The proposal also includes the removal of a door within the ground floor side elevation of the main dwelling and its replacement with a small window to serve a utility room. As this window would not serve a habitable space and would be opposite the side extension of 30 Kingscroft Avenue where there are no windows installed within the side elevation, it is not considered that any harmful overlooking would arise. At first floor level, an existing obscure-glazed large window is proposed to be replaced by a smaller window and the window would remain to serve a bathroom. It is noted that there are windows within the side elevation of 30 Kingscroft Avenue opposite this window which appear to be clear-glazed. Given this, it is considered reasonable to attach a condition requiring the new window to also be obscure-glazed in the interests of maintaining the privacy of these neighbouring occupiers. All other surrounding dwellings are considered to be sufficiently separated or screened from the proposal and would therefore not be detrimentally impacted.
The proposed two-storey rear extension is considered to be of an appropriate depth (2.4m) and would remain within 45 degrees of the rear of the nearest rear opening within the adjacent property of 30 Kingscroft Avenue and therefore would not result in any unacceptable loss of light or overbearing impact for occupiers of this neighbouring property. In terms of the impact for occupiers of the adjoining property of 26 Kingscroft Avenue, the proposed extension would not extend beyond the existing single-storey rear extension of this neighbouring property and at first floor level the extension would remain within a 45 degree angle of the adjacent first floor rear window of 26 Kingscroft Avenue which appears to serve a bedroom, as demonstrated on drawing number 24/301/102. As such, taking this into account, together with its relatively modest depth of 1.95m beyond the rear of this neighbouring property and its siting in a northerly position in relation to this neighbouring property, it is not considered that any adverse loss of light or overbearing impact would occur for occupiers of this adjoining property. All other surrounding properties are considered to be sufficiently separated so as to not be detrimentally impacted.
The proposal involves the enlargement of existing rooms within the dwelling and does not involve the provision of any additional bedrooms. Given that no additional bedrooms would be accommodated, the proposal would not be considered to represent increased parking demand requiring additional parking provision to be demonstrated. The proposal would not affect the existing parking or access arrangements at the site and would therefore be acceptable on a like-for-like basis.
Occupiers of neighbouring properties and Dunstable Town Council have been consulted on this application. The Town Council have raised no objection to the proposal and no representations from neighbours or other third parties have been received.
The Ecologist has also been consulted and raised no objection to the proposal, however, advises the applicant that it is the legal responsibility of the contractor to check for bats and to notify Natural England for advice if bats are found during construction works and an informative note will be attached advising the applicant of this.
The site lies partially within the core of the medieval town of Dunstable and adjacent to the core of the Roman town (HERs 16986 & 131), and immediately adjacent to an undated well (HER22518). These are heritage assets with archaeological interest, as defined by the NPPF. However, the Archaeologist considers that scale and nature of the proposal are such there is unlikely to be a major impact upon any surviving archaeological remains. Consequently, the Archaeologist advises that there would be no archaeological constraint on this development and the proposal would have an acceptable archaeological impact.
Overall, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policies HQ1, T2, T3 and HE1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021), Section 11 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide, the Parking Standards for New Developments SPD, and Sections 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). |
| 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
)The site is located within the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Zone of Influence. 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) Zone of Influence. 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
)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). |
| 5
)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. |
| 6
)Please note that the unnumbered drawings submitted in connection with this application have been given unique numbers by the Local Planning Authority. The numbers can be sourced by examining the plans on the View a Planning Application pages of the Councils website www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk.Please note that the unnumbered drawings submitted in connection with this application have been given unique numbers by the Local Planning Authority. The numbers can be sourced by examining the plans on the View a Planning Application pages of the Councils website www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk. |
| 7
)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 |
| 8
)The applicant is advised that where roofing work or timber treatment is to be undertaken it is the legal responsibility of the contractor to check for bats. If bats are found during the course of any works to buildings or trees where not previously anticipated, then works should immediately stop and Natural England notified for appropriate advice.The applicant is advised that where roofing work or timber treatment is to be undertaken it is the legal responsibility of the contractor to check for bats. If bats are found during the course of any works to buildings or trees where not previously anticipated, then works should immediately stop and Natural England notified for appropriate advice. |
|
|---|