X hits on this document

50 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

26 / 26

PLANNING COMMITTEE

17th January 2006

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application is for a two storey side extension forming garage and shower room at ground floor level and 4th bedroom and bedroom extension at first floor level.  Finally a dining room extension is proposed at the rear.  In general terms the extension has been sensitively designed and incorporates a hipped roof which matches the original.  However the application raises a detailed design issue which are nonetheless significant.

The proposal does not conform to council policy regarding terracing effect; the front elevation of the proposed extension is only set back 0.3m from the main elevation of the dwelling whereas the Local Plan requires a step back of at least 0.5m.  

The supporting text to Policy B16 states:

“There is occasional pressure for the gap between detached and semi-detached houses to be filled in with two storey side extensions which, if repeated throughout a street would cause a 'terracing effect'.  In order to maintain standards in the housing stocks extensions to overcome this effect.  This is likely to take the form of requiring the front wall of the extension to be set back by at least 0.5 metres from the main facade or requiring the roof line to be lowered or both”.

The ridge line is 0.5m lower than the main ridge line which is satisfactory but the front elevation would need to be amended for the proposal to be acceptable.  A request was made for the necessary set back to be made but this was not acceptable to the agent.  While the difference of 0.2m appears modest I believe that the required setback of 0.5m is a minimum standard set in the Local Plan and that a blurring of this policy should not be supported.

Finally the proposed garage dimensions were originally too small, these have since been amended to achieve the required dimension.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that Planning Permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.The two storey side extension, by virtue of its 0.3m set back from the main elevation is  not considered acceptable as it does not conform with Policy B16 which requires a 0.5m set back to avoid a 'terracing effect' in the street scene.

Page 26 of 25

Document info
Document views50
Page views50
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 06:53:40 UTC 2016
Pages26
Paragraphs500
Words9291

Comments