AT 63 Goldsmith Drive, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire FOR Crystal Homes Ltd (as amended by Drawings received 5 February 2008) INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 07/02120/FUL TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AT 63 Goldsmith Drive, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire FOR Crystal Homes Ltd (as amended by Drawings received 5 February 2008) INTRODUCTION The application property is a semi detached dwelling in Goldsmith Drive, Newport Pagnell.The application seeks permission for a significant two storey side extension, which in revised form has width of 6.5 metres, depth of 6.3 metres and set back of 1.3 metres. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY In February 2007 a planning consultant requested pre-application advice on a proposed new dwelling at 63 Goldsmith Drive. He was advised that the proposed dwelling would be out of keeping with the existing character of the area and would have a detrimental impact on the street scene. Therefore it would be unlikely for planning permission to be granted. MAIN ISSUES Whether the extension, due to its size and position, would have an unacceptable impact on the appearance of the area or the amenities of the dwellings at the rear. PLANNING POLICIES Policies of the Adopted Local Plan, particularly relevant to the present application include: - D1: Impact of the Proposal on the Locality - D2: Design of Buildings CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS Newport Pagnell Town Council - No Objections Highways Development Control - Recommendation of approval with a condition relating to the altered means of access to the two on plot parking spaces.

2

3

4

5 Three letters have been received by the residents of 11, 12 and 13 Coleridge Close objecting on the following grounds: - Intrusion of privacy - Loss of light - Size of development - Impact on the character of the area - Possible later sub-division to separate dwelling CONSIDERATIONS Due to the setting and size of the extension, concerns were raised by officers in relation to the scale and visual dominance of the extension. The applicant was asked for the width of the extension to be reduced to 5.0 metres and for it to be set back further from the front elevation in line with the 2m set back of the existing garage. The applicant has submitted amended plans with the width of the extension reduced from 7.3m to 6.5m and the front elevation not set further back. The decrease in width is considered to be negligible and does not result is a less overbearing scheme. The small set back from the front elevation would result in a visually prominent extension and cause the ridge to be only 0.3m lower than the existing house. The proposal is therefore considered not to be subservient to the existing dwelling. The applicant provided an example of a similar permitted extension at 61 Wordsworth Avenue, Newport Pagnell, in support of the current application. Planning permission was granted in 1999 for a two storey side extension at 61 Wordsworth Avenue. A significant difference between the two proposals is that the two storey side extension at 61 Wordsworth Avenue was set back from the front elevation by 2m, whereas the current application is only set back by 1.3m. Number 61 Wordsworth Avenue is also considered to be in a less prominent location and therefore does not have a detrimental impact on the character of area. Also, in that case there is no concern regarding the impact on dwellings at the rear. Due to the substantial size of the proposed extension, there is potential for subdivision of the dwelling in the future. Any application for the subdivision of the dwelling would have to be determined on its own merits. The sub-standard rear to rear separation of the respective properties would be a significant factor in such a decision. There have been objections from the residents of Coleridge Close on the grounds of intrusion of privacy, overlooking and loss of light. The north-east facing upper windows of the new extension would serve the new bathroom and landing. Therefore, if planning permission was granted, a condition could be imposed ensuring the new upper windows were to be obscurely glazed. The concerns over loss of light, privacy and overlooking do not therefore warrant refusal.

6 This application is considered finely balanced and is brought to the committee on that basis and because of the implication that it could be the precursor to a future application for a dwelling (which must be treated subsequently on its own merits). The applicant has now informed officers that he has filed an appeal against non-determination. An update on whether a valid appeal has been registered will be given and possibly the committee will be asked to indicate the decision it would have taken if jurisdiction on the application has been removed by the appeal. However, the officer recommendation, on balance, is that permission should be refused as the extension is not sufficiently subservient to the main dwelling and in its setting would be visually prominent in the street scene, contrary to policies D1 and D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that permission be refused. Report author / case officer Kit Carrau Contact details Kit.Carrau@milton-keynes.gov.uk