| Informative Notes: | | 1
)Reasons for granting:
The application site is a detached property located on Church Road, Meppershall. The proposal is for a part two storey part single storey rear extension, internal alterations, fenestration changes and creation of Juliet balcony to front elevation
As part of the originally submitted scheme, the proposed two storey rear and side extension would have been visible to the streetscene, extending 1.08m past the existing first floor of the dwelling. In addition to this, the extension was not set down from the main ridgeline. The plans were amended during the application process, revised plans were received where the side element of the extension has been removed from the proposal and the proposed ridge height has been dropped lower than the main ridge height. Given the amendments made to the scheme the two storey rear extension would appear subservient to the host dwelling which would not result in any detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposed part single-storey rear extension would be shielded by the existing dwelling and proposed built form and therefore would not be readily visible to the street scene furthermore, the proposed extension would be considered subservient in scale and design to the existing dwelling. The proposed rooflights would be considered small and modest in scale and would not be considered to result in harm to the character and appearance of the area.
The proposed juliet balcony would be visible to the streetscene, and it is noted that adjacent properties do not feature front balconies. However given the small scale and design of the balcony this aspect of the proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposed enlargement to the front fenestration would be visible to the street scene, however, it is deemed that this aspect of the proposal would be considered a small scale and modest development that would be considered to form a sympathetic alteration to the existing dwellinghouse, which would have a neutral impact upon the character and appearance of the area.
In terms of neighbouring amenity, the part two storey part single storey rear extension would be set marginally off the boundary with No.3 Church Road. The two storey element would extend 2.82m in depth. The two-storey extension would comply with the 45 degree guidance used for assessing loss of light. The 45 Degree Rule aims to maintain a reasonable relationship between existing buildings and extensions, as well as preventing an excessive daylight loss or overshadowing to habitable rooms of neighbouring properties and as such the proposed extensions are not considered to cause an adverse loss of light to this neighbouring property. The single storey element would extend an additional 1.25m taking the overall depth of the extension at ground floor level to 4.07m. The single storey rear extension would have a limited impact on the light to this neighbouring properties rear elevation. However, given the existing garage located on the neighbouring property screening the majority of the proposed built form and the proposal's single storey nature this would not be considered so significant to warrant a reason for refusal. The part two storey and part single storey rear extension would be set 2.25m off the boundary with No.7 Church Road. Given the separation distance and the rear extensions passing the assessment for loss of light it would not result in an adverse impact on the residential amenity of occupants of this neighbouring dwelling, by way of an overbearing impact, loss of light or loss of outlook. All other neighbouring dwellings are sufficiently separated or screened from the rear extensions, as such they would not be detrimentally impacted.
Views from the balcony within the first floor front elevation of the property would be largely directed towards the driveway of the property, the public highway and the open countryside beyond to the west of the site. Some views of the front driveway area of neighbouring 3 Church Road may be achieved, however, this is not considered as a private amenity space. Views into openings within the front elevation of adjoining 3 Church Road would be obscured by the front projection of this property which is set further forward than the proposed balcony, preventing any views across to the windows within this adjoining property. The proposed balcony is positioned forwards of the front elevation of the neighbouring property 7 Church Road. As a result, some views from the proposed balcony may be able to achieved towards openings within the front elevation of 7 Church Road. However, there would be a separation distance of approximately 6m between the proposed balcony and the neighbouring front window. Furthermore, the balcony is of a small scale and therefore would not lend itself to prolonged use as a terrace area. As a result of this, together with the oblique angle of any views towards this neighbouring property, on balance it is not considered that the front balcony would give rise to harmful overlooking and a loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers of 7 Church Road. As such, it is not deemed necessary or reasonable to require any privacy screens to be installed around the proposed balcony.
The proposal would see an additional first floor window on the south side elevation facing towards 7 Church Road. Due to the window being obscured glazed it would not result in any additional overlooking or a loss of privacy for this neighbouring property. There would also be an additional door and window on the ground floor side elevation facing this neighbouring property. There are similar windows as existing on the application site on the ground floor side elevation. Therefore, this relationship already exists. It is not considered that the proposed changes would result in any greater loss of privacy than the existing relationship already allows. The fenestration enlargement proposed on the front elevation would be facing towards the highway. This property is set back from the highway and due to the separation distance and existing windows at the front of the dwelling this change of fenestration would not have any detrimental impact on the residential amenities of any neighbouring properties.
The proposal would increase the bedrooms in the dwelling from four to five bedrooms and so four off street parking spaces would be required. On a site visit, the officer noted that three cars were currently parked on the front of the site. As shown on Plan No.P02 Rev B four parking spaces are achievable on site however these spaces would not be in accordance with the Parking Standards SPD. Whilst the proposal would be considered contrary to the Parking Standards SPD, given that none of the proposed works would be at the frontage of the site, within the existing arrangement three cars currently are able to park on site, and the type of road that the application site is accessed from, it is considered that the proposal would not cause a significant highway safety issue.
The application was subject to public consultation and no representations were received, and the Town Council raised no objections, however wanted to ensure there is adequate parking on site. Matters with regards to parking were addressed in the section above.
It is considered that the proposal will be in accordance with Section 12 of the NPPF, Policies HQ1, T2 and T3 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, Parking Standards in new development SPD and Section 11 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide.Reasons for granting:
The application site is a detached property located on Church Road, Meppershall. The proposal is for a part two storey part single storey rear extension, internal alterations, fenestration changes and creation of Juliet balcony to front elevation
As part of the originally submitted scheme, the proposed two storey rear and side extension would have been visible to the streetscene, extending 1.08m past the existing first floor of the dwelling. In addition to this, the extension was not set down from the main ridgeline. The plans were amended during the application process, revised plans were received where the side element of the extension has been removed from the proposal and the proposed ridge height has been dropped lower than the main ridge height. Given the amendments made to the scheme the two storey rear extension would appear subservient to the host dwelling which would not result in any detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposed part single-storey rear extension would be shielded by the existing dwelling and proposed built form and therefore would not be readily visible to the street scene furthermore, the proposed extension would be considered subservient in scale and design to the existing dwelling. The proposed rooflights would be considered small and modest in scale and would not be considered to result in harm to the character and appearance of the area.
The proposed juliet balcony would be visible to the streetscene, and it is noted that adjacent properties do not feature front balconies. However given the small scale and design of the balcony this aspect of the proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposed enlargement to the front fenestration would be visible to the street scene, however, it is deemed that this aspect of the proposal would be considered a small scale and modest development that would be considered to form a sympathetic alteration to the existing dwellinghouse, which would have a neutral impact upon the character and appearance of the area.
In terms of neighbouring amenity, the part two storey part single storey rear extension would be set marginally off the boundary with No.3 Church Road. The two storey element would extend 2.82m in depth. The two-storey extension would comply with the 45 degree guidance used for assessing loss of light. The 45 Degree Rule aims to maintain a reasonable relationship between existing buildings and extensions, as well as preventing an excessive daylight loss or overshadowing to habitable rooms of neighbouring properties and as such the proposed extensions are not considered to cause an adverse loss of light to this neighbouring property. The single storey element would extend an additional 1.25m taking the overall depth of the extension at ground floor level to 4.07m. The single storey rear extension would have a limited impact on the light to this neighbouring properties rear elevation. However, given the existing garage located on the neighbouring property screening the majority of the proposed built form and the proposal's single storey nature this would not be considered so significant to warrant a reason for refusal. The part two storey and part single storey rear extension would be set 2.25m off the boundary with No.7 Church Road. Given the separation distance and the rear extensions passing the assessment for loss of light it would not result in an adverse impact on the residential amenity of occupants of this neighbouring dwelling, by way of an overbearing impact, loss of light or loss of outlook. All other neighbouring dwellings are sufficiently separated or screened from the rear extensions, as such they would not be detrimentally impacted.
Views from the balcony within the first floor front elevation of the property would be largely directed towards the driveway of the property, the public highway and the open countryside beyond to the west of the site. Some views of the front driveway area of neighbouring 3 Church Road may be achieved, however, this is not considered as a private amenity space. Views into openings within the front elevation of adjoining 3 Church Road would be obscured by the front projection of this property which is set further forward than the proposed balcony, preventing any views across to the windows within this adjoining property. The proposed balcony is positioned forwards of the front elevation of the neighbouring property 7 Church Road. As a result, some views from the proposed balcony may be able to achieved towards openings within the front elevation of 7 Church Road. However, there would be a separation distance of approximately 6m between the proposed balcony and the neighbouring front window. Furthermore, the balcony is of a small scale and therefore would not lend itself to prolonged use as a terrace area. As a result of this, together with the oblique angle of any views towards this neighbouring property, on balance it is not considered that the front balcony would give rise to harmful overlooking and a loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers of 7 Church Road. As such, it is not deemed necessary or reasonable to require any privacy screens to be installed around the proposed balcony.
The proposal would see an additional first floor window on the south side elevation facing towards 7 Church Road. Due to the window being obscured glazed it would not result in any additional overlooking or a loss of privacy for this neighbouring property. There would also be an additional door and window on the ground floor side elevation facing this neighbouring property. There are similar windows as existing on the application site on the ground floor side elevation. Therefore, this relationship already exists. It is not considered that the proposed changes would result in any greater loss of privacy than the existing relationship already allows. The fenestration enlargement proposed on the front elevation would be facing towards the highway. This property is set back from the highway and due to the separation distance and existing windows at the front of the dwelling this change of fenestration would not have any detrimental impact on the residential amenities of any neighbouring properties.
The proposal would increase the bedrooms in the dwelling from four to five bedrooms and so four off street parking spaces would be required. On a site visit, the officer noted that three cars were currently parked on the front of the site. As shown on Plan No.P02 Rev B four parking spaces are achievable on site however these spaces would not be in accordance with the Parking Standards SPD. Whilst the proposal would be considered contrary to the Parking Standards SPD, given that none of the proposed works would be at the frontage of the site, within the existing arrangement three cars currently are able to park on site, and the type of road that the application site is accessed from, it is considered that the proposal would not cause a significant highway safety issue.
The application was subject to public consultation and no representations were received, and the Town Council raised no objections, however wanted to ensure there is adequate parking on site. Matters with regards to parking were addressed in the section above.
It is considered that the proposal will be in accordance with Section 12 of the NPPF, Policies HQ1, T2 and T3 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, Parking Standards in new development SPD and Section 11 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide. |
| 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). |
| 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 |
|
|---|