| Informative Notes: | | 1
)Reasons for Granting:
The proposal seeks planning permission for the demolition of an existing garage and the erection of a two storey side extension and front porch extension.
The application site comprises a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling located along Castles Close, in Stotfold. The surrounding area is residential in nature, characterised with dwellings of a similar design and scale. Some dwellings within the streetscene, including the host dwelling's attached semi-detached 'pair' (No. 11 Castles Close), have benefitted from two storey side extensions. On this basis, the principle of a two storey side extension would not appear at odds with the pattern and grain of development within the local area. This aspect of the proposal would have a staggered design with a protruding, rear gable projection. This would also appear similar in its design to the side extension at No. 11 Castles Close. In addition to this, the proposed side extension would retain an appropriate set back from the front elevation, and a set down from the ridgeline of the host dwelling. The side extension would also retain a 1 metre separation from the adjacent shared boundary with No. 15 Castles Close. This neighbouring dwelling is also angled away from the host dwelling and on this basis, there would be no visual 'terracing' effect as a result of the proposed side extension in this siting. As such, the proposed two storey side extension would form a subservient and acceptable addition, which would not be considered to result in any detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area. The proposed front porch would form a small scale, modest addition to the front of the dwelling which would incorporate a gable roof, reflecting the design and appearance of the existing dwelling. As such, this aspect of the proposal would also not be deemed to result in any adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area.
As regards neighbouring amenity, the proposed two storey side extension would be mostly screened from neighbouring dwelling No. 11 Castles Close by the built form of the host dwelling. The side extension's rear gable projection and the proposed front porch would be visible, however, would be well separated from this neighbouring dwelling as to where no detrimental loss of light, overbearing impact or loss of outlook would be deemed to arise. In addition, no new windows are sought on the side elevation of the two storey side extension which would face No. 11. The new first floor rear window within the side extension would provide a similar outlook to the existing first floor windows and as such, an acceptable level of privacy would be retained.
The proposed two storey side extension would replace an existing garage and would be sited adjacent to neighbouring dwelling No. 15 Castles Close. The extension would be appropriately separated from the shared boundary with No. 15, by 1 metre at its closest point. The proposal would be further separated from the built form of this neighbouring dwelling by at least some 4 metres to the front elevation - this separation increases to the rear of the proposed extension by virtue of the angled siting and relationship between the host dwelling and No. 15. The garage belonging to No. 15 would also assist in separating and partially screening the extension from the built form of this neighbouring property. On this basis, the proposed side extension would not be considered to result in any detrimental loss of light or overbearing impact upon the windows of this neighbouring dwelling. The side extension would be sited adjacent to the private amenity area of No. 15, however, due to the appropriate separation of the proposal from the boundary and this neighbouring dwelling's garden, together with the modest scale, depth and appropriate height and set down of the extension from the ridgeline of the host dwelling; it is not considered that there would not be any significant loss of light, overbearing impact or loss of outlook, which would warrant a reason for the refusal of this application on this basis. One first floor window is sought on the side elevation facing No. 15, which serves a hallway. To protect privacy and to ensure no overlooking impact would arise, it is considered appropriate to attach a condition to ensure this window is obscure-glazed and fixed shut, unless the parts of the window which can be opened are sited 1.7 metres above ground level. Aside from the above, the front porch would be appropriately separated from No. 15 Castles Close as to where no adverse loss of light, overbearing impact or loss of privacy would be considered to arise. As such, this aspect of the proposal would also be acceptable.
All other neighbouring dwellings are deemed to be sufficiently separated and/ or screened from the proposals as to where they would not be detrimentally impacted.
The proposals would result in the loss of the existing garage at the site and would increase the number of bedrooms within the host dwelling from three, to four. As per the Council's Parking Standards for New Developments SPD, 3 off-street parking spaces would be required. The existing garage would not be deemed large enough to accommodate a vehicle, as per the Parking Standards SPD. Aside from this, the proposals would not adversely impact the existing parking and access arrangements at the site. Three parking spaces have been demonstrated on the existing driveway on the plans provided. It would appear that two of these parking spaces would be workable. However, in any case, it is also acknowledged that there are no on-street parking restrictions nearby. As such, the proposals would not be considered to result in any detrimental impact upon highway safety.
Neighbouring properties and the Town Council have been consulted on this application. Stotfold Town Council raised no objection and no comments were received in the form of public representations.
Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policies HQ1, T2 and T3 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, Section 11 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide, the Parking Standards for New Development SPD and Sections 9 and 12 of the NPPF.Reasons for Granting:
The proposal seeks planning permission for the demolition of an existing garage and the erection of a two storey side extension and front porch extension.
The application site comprises a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling located along Castles Close, in Stotfold. The surrounding area is residential in nature, characterised with dwellings of a similar design and scale. Some dwellings within the streetscene, including the host dwelling's attached semi-detached 'pair' (No. 11 Castles Close), have benefitted from two storey side extensions. On this basis, the principle of a two storey side extension would not appear at odds with the pattern and grain of development within the local area. This aspect of the proposal would have a staggered design with a protruding, rear gable projection. This would also appear similar in its design to the side extension at No. 11 Castles Close. In addition to this, the proposed side extension would retain an appropriate set back from the front elevation, and a set down from the ridgeline of the host dwelling. The side extension would also retain a 1 metre separation from the adjacent shared boundary with No. 15 Castles Close. This neighbouring dwelling is also angled away from the host dwelling and on this basis, there would be no visual 'terracing' effect as a result of the proposed side extension in this siting. As such, the proposed two storey side extension would form a subservient and acceptable addition, which would not be considered to result in any detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area. The proposed front porch would form a small scale, modest addition to the front of the dwelling which would incorporate a gable roof, reflecting the design and appearance of the existing dwelling. As such, this aspect of the proposal would also not be deemed to result in any adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area.
As regards neighbouring amenity, the proposed two storey side extension would be mostly screened from neighbouring dwelling No. 11 Castles Close by the built form of the host dwelling. The side extension's rear gable projection and the proposed front porch would be visible, however, would be well separated from this neighbouring dwelling as to where no detrimental loss of light, overbearing impact or loss of outlook would be deemed to arise. In addition, no new windows are sought on the side elevation of the two storey side extension which would face No. 11. The new first floor rear window within the side extension would provide a similar outlook to the existing first floor windows and as such, an acceptable level of privacy would be retained.
The proposed two storey side extension would replace an existing garage and would be sited adjacent to neighbouring dwelling No. 15 Castles Close. The extension would be appropriately separated from the shared boundary with No. 15, by 1 metre at its closest point. The proposal would be further separated from the built form of this neighbouring dwelling by at least some 4 metres to the front elevation - this separation increases to the rear of the proposed extension by virtue of the angled siting and relationship between the host dwelling and No. 15. The garage belonging to No. 15 would also assist in separating and partially screening the extension from the built form of this neighbouring property. On this basis, the proposed side extension would not be considered to result in any detrimental loss of light or overbearing impact upon the windows of this neighbouring dwelling. The side extension would be sited adjacent to the private amenity area of No. 15, however, due to the appropriate separation of the proposal from the boundary and this neighbouring dwelling's garden, together with the modest scale, depth and appropriate height and set down of the extension from the ridgeline of the host dwelling; it is not considered that there would not be any significant loss of light, overbearing impact or loss of outlook, which would warrant a reason for the refusal of this application on this basis. One first floor window is sought on the side elevation facing No. 15, which serves a hallway. To protect privacy and to ensure no overlooking impact would arise, it is considered appropriate to attach a condition to ensure this window is obscure-glazed and fixed shut, unless the parts of the window which can be opened are sited 1.7 metres above ground level. Aside from the above, the front porch would be appropriately separated from No. 15 Castles Close as to where no adverse loss of light, overbearing impact or loss of privacy would be considered to arise. As such, this aspect of the proposal would also be acceptable.
All other neighbouring dwellings are deemed to be sufficiently separated and/ or screened from the proposals as to where they would not be detrimentally impacted.
The proposals would result in the loss of the existing garage at the site and would increase the number of bedrooms within the host dwelling from three, to four. As per the Council's Parking Standards for New Developments SPD, 3 off-street parking spaces would be required. The existing garage would not be deemed large enough to accommodate a vehicle, as per the Parking Standards SPD. Aside from this, the proposals would not adversely impact the existing parking and access arrangements at the site. Three parking spaces have been demonstrated on the existing driveway on the plans provided. It would appear that two of these parking spaces would be workable. However, in any case, it is also acknowledged that there are no on-street parking restrictions nearby. As such, the proposals would not be considered to result in any detrimental impact upon highway safety.
Neighbouring properties and the Town Council have been consulted on this application. Stotfold Town Council raised no objection and no comments were received in the form of public representations.
Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policies HQ1, T2 and T3 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, Section 11 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide, the Parking Standards for New Development SPD and Sections 9 and 12 of the NPPF. |
| 2
)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
)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. |
| 4
)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 |
|
|---|